Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — ENERGY

Gas-gathering System

Mr. Douglas: asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement on the progress made in financing the gas-gathering system for the North Sea.

The Minister of State, Department of Energy (Mr. Hamish Gray): The gas-gathering organising group has invited parties with an economic interest in the project to consider participation in the financing. The Bank of Scotland is discussing interim bank financing with a group of banks, and I understand that a report will be submitted soon to the organising group.

Mr. Douglas: Is it the Minister's contention that that report should be made available to Parliament for discussion? I ask that because there is increasing disquiet that the Government are raping the gas industry to the tune of £1·6 billion and are at the same time scraping round the private sector to obtain funds to finance this important gas-gathering system, which is vital to the interests of my constituency?

Mr. Gray: It would not be suitable to make such a report available to Parliament, because this matter is part of a commercial negotiation. Parliament could contribute nothing beneficial at this stage.

Mr. Eggar: Can my hon. Friend confirm that work of the gas-gathering pipeline is up to date? When will there be private share ownership of the gas-gathering pipeline system?

Mr. Gray: I can confirm to my hon. Friend that the arrangements for the gas-gathering system are up to date. The organising group is making good progress. Approximately £8 million has already been spent, with pre-construction surveys and so on. It is not intended to make private shareholdings available now, but that is an option for the future.

Mr. Gordon Wilson: Does the Minister accept, however, that there is concern that there has been slippage in the time scale of the financing arrangements for the gas-gathering pipeline? Will he look into those complaints? Further, will he take on board the fact that the Norwegian gas-gathering pipeline may be going ahead at the same time? That will bring a combined demand for pipe-laying barges and other hardware, which might push up the prices of those items to high levels, if the equipment can be found.

Mr. Gray: The answer to the hon. Gentleman's first question is that, naturally, these things take time. A. large quantity of gas and an enormous amount of money are involved. It would be unrealistic to think that arrangements could be concluded overnight. The answer to the hon. Gentleman's second question is that the Norwegians must make their own decisions on those matters. Even so, it is unlikely that the Norwegian pipeline will compete with our pipeline on time scale. We believe that our pipeline will be completed in the 1984–85 period that has been envisaged. We do not expect the Norwegian pipeline to be able to compete with that for progress.

Mr. Rowlands: Is the Minister aware that the delays and uncertainties about getting the scheme off the ground are doing considerable damage not only to the industries of my hon. Friends and others, but to the hopes of others, including the Norwegian authorities, in the scheme? There are severe doubts about whether the gas-gathering pipeline will be built in anything like the time scale that the Minister suggests.

Mr. Gray: I could not disagree more with the hon. Gentleman. Companies are not apprehensive. Naturally, everyone wants the scheme to get off the ground as soon as possible, but the negotiations are vital both to the companies and to the Government. They must take a Little time.

European Community (Energy Policy)

Mr. Knox: asked the Secretary of State for energy whether he intends to take any initiatives towards the development of a European Economic Community energy policy.

The Secretary of State for Energy (Mr. David Howell): Community policy on energy matters is continually developed through discussion in the Energy Council, in which the United Kingdom plays a full role.

Mr. Knox: Is my right hon. Friend satisfied with the progress that is being made towards the fulfilment of the Community commitment to the economic pricing of energy?

Mr. Howell: The European Commission is conducting an examination of the common principles of energy pricing in Europe. No one is pressing for a harmonisation of the prices. That would be absurd, with the continual fluctuations in exchange rates. However, the Commission is pressing on with an examination of the principles. That is progress in the right direction.

Mr. Merlyn Rees: If I may use the analogy of fisheries and agriculture, would it not be a good idea, and possibly our right, when there has been an Energy Council meeting in the EEC, for a report to be made to the House?

Mr. Howell: At the appropriate time, reports are made to the House. Whether they are written or oral is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House and for the convenience of the House.

Energy Prices

Mr. Michael Morris: asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement on the Government's response to the National Economic Development Council report on comparative energy prices.

Sir David Price: asked the Secretary of State for Energy what action he proposes to take in the light of the National Economic Development Council energy task force report.

Dr. Edmund Marshall: asked the Secretary of State for Energy what action he is taking in consequence of the National Economic Development Council energy task force report published on 4 March.

Mr. Neubert: asked the Secretary of State for Energy what action he proposes to take on the National Economic Development Council report on comparative costs of industrial fuels.

Mr. David Howell: Energy supply industries are implementing measures which, in addition to steps already taken last year, will provide considerable benefit, particularly to large energy intensive users. The NEDC task force report was fully taken into account in reaching these decisions.
The necessary adjustment to the industries cash limits will assist industry by some £120 million in the financial year.

Mr. Morris: Despite the welcome adjustments, is my right hon. Friend aware that heavy energy users still have to face prices that are uncompetitive with those of their European counterparts, let alone those in the United States, Canada, Scandinavia and even Japan? Will he therefore bring forward further proposals to adjust the disadvantage, reconsider the heavy fuel oil duty and, last but by no means least, take action over the 30 per cent. premium on coking coal?

Mr. Howell: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his welcome for the new measures. Action has been taken successively over the past year. The price plateau announced by the BGC will go a considerable way towards offsetting the disadvantage to bulk energy users, which was mainly, although not entirely, caused by the steep climb in sterling, which distorted comparative prices.
There are greater difficulties over electricity, particularly for heavy users. The electricity supply industry is announcing measures to ease the position for heavy load users. However, we must face the fact that the basic structure of our industry is less efficient than, for instance, that of the French, who built nuclear power stations in the 1970s, while the previous Government dithered and failed to take the decisions necessary to get on with nuclear power. We shall overcome the problem, but it is bound to take time. Heavy fuel oil duty is a matter for my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor, but he says that he will keep it under review.
The NEDC report mentioned foundry coke, which is a particularly difficult area. I recognise the disparity. We are examining the matter, but solutions are not easy.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Hon. Members should ask only one supplementary question and only one should be answered.

Sir David Price: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, in spite of the measures announced in the Budget, large and continuous energy users are not satisfied that energy costs are down to those of their European competitors? Will he take on board the fact that it is a question not of theoretical economics and margin of costing, but of the competition that our industry has to face?

Mr. Howell: My hon. Friend is right about competition. The Government wish to see the competitive production of energy, as of all other goods. The gas price plateau will put us broadly in line with the remainder of Europe, remembering that 95 per cent. of all users are already in line, as the NEDC report confirms, but, as I said, we have a long-term structural problem to overcome with electricity. Our price, including duty, for heavy fuel oil is probably one of the lowest in Europe.

Dr. Marshall: What guarantee does the gas price plateau give if there is future fluctuation in comparative overseas prices, and particularly if the exchange rate continues to change? Will the Secretary of State urge the BGC to consider new contractual arrangements with the 15 per cent. of intensive users, which take about 85 per cent. of the total usage in order to protect them from that form of overseas competition?

Mr. Howell: I should be happy to answer all the hon. Gentleman's questions, but I shall answer only the first. Energy prices cannot move up and down as exchange rates fluctuate. It would make the system impossible to operate. As I said, we believe that our energy prices should be competitive, like all other prices, although we should not hand out subsidies where industries are not covering costs, nor abandon economic prices. Because of hideous past errors, competitive electricity pricing will take time to achieve.

Mr. Neubert: On the day on which the Italian Government have given artificial assistance to exports, may I emphasise to my right hon. Friend and the Government that unless they come up trumps our industrialists are in danger of losing most of the tricks?

Mr. Howell: We wish to hold as many trumps as possible, one of which is security of energy supply, which many other countries, including our Italian friends, lack. Let us not foret that. Help for individual industries through the difficult transitional period is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry. Much the most sensible aim in our energy policy is to stick to economic pricing, while seeking to ensure that the fuel supply industries are fully sensitive to their customers' needs, particularly in the difficult time of recession.

Mr. Merlyn Rees: Are we to tell heavy energy users, who continue to contact us, that the provisions in the Budget are the Government's only response to the NEDC task force report?

Mr. Howell: Keeping a gas price plateau for industry while Continental gas prices are set to rise rapidly will place our heavy users in a favourable position. Our domestic gas prices are by far the cheapest in Europe, although that fact may not necessarily be welcome to industry. The right hon. Gentleman should not belittle what has been done.

Mr. Skeet: Is my right hon. Friend aware that this matter is to be discussed in my motion on Friday? Is he further aware that unless he shortly brings forward adequate proposals he will force energy intensive industries into decline?

Mr. Howell: I was aware of the debate that is to be held in the House because of my hon. Friend's efforts. His services to the House are unending. In preparing for that


debate, will he examine carefully our energy position vis-a-vis our Continental and world competitors? He will be the first to recognise that, although the French have an advantage because of cheaper nuclear power, it will take us time to equal. In many other areas we have competitive prices. Indeed according to the NEDC 95 per cent. of all our consumers have broadly competitive prices with Europe. In addition, we have security of supply. I hope that my hon. Friend will emphasise those points in the debate that he is usefully and helpfully promoting.

Mr. Hooley: May we have slightly more intelligent cooperation between the Departments of Energy and Industry? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, while he has been busy forcing up the price of gas and electricity to the BSC, his unfortunate right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry has had to foot the bill from the taxpayer?

Mr. Howell: The hon. Gentleman uses the phrase "forcing up". I find it highly disagreeable that prices have to rise, but rises were necessary to cover the costs of supplying electricity. If the hon. Gentleman is suggesting that costs should not be covered, who does he suggest should pick up the tab? Where is the money to come from? It does not grow on trees.

Mr. Moate: How much of the extra Budget provision for bulk energy users will go to the steel industry? Can my right hon. Friend spell out precisely how the provisions will benefit bulk energy users, particularly a steel firm which alleges that its electricity is costing 50 per cent. more than the cost to its Continental competitors?

Mr. Howell: The electricity industry will announce precise details and put them into practice after 1 April. It is already discussing with customers how it can help. Customers that can be helped will be those with a particularly high load factor who can meet the peak pattern of electricity supplies. The gain in terms of a reduced increase in tariff will be quite substantial. However, I am afraid that we shall not be in the league we should have been in had we had lower cost electricity generally as a result of a larger nuclear element, which is what we need.

Mr. Hardy: We hope that the proposals in the Budget will be of some help, but will the Minister reassure the steel industry, in both the public and private sectors, that further help will be forthcoming if the end result of the task force recommendations is to leave it still in an uncompetitive position in relation to German and French producers?

Mr. Howell: The general problems of the steel industry world-wide are considerable. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry has addressed them vigorously. On the energy side, however, as I have explained, provisions have been made—not only in the last Budget, but previously—to ease the burden of electricity costs for large users in this country. The disparity with France, however, which is of particular concern to the steel industry, will remain, for the simple reason that decisions that should have been taken to build nuclear in the 1970s were met instead with dithering and indecision by the Labour Government.

North Sea Oil (Licences)

Mr. Dykes: asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement of his policy of allocations of

seventh round exploration licences to smaller independent companies, including those registered in the United Kingdom.

Mr. Gray: The invitation to apply for seventh round licences detailed the criteria against which all applications would be examined. Many of the applications, including smaller independent companies, were successful, and a good number of such companies were British.

Mr. Dykes: I congratulate my right hon. Friend and the Government on encouraging the independents in the latest allocations and groupings. Is my hon. Friend satisfied that the extra financial and fiscal burdens facing all oil companies will not make it that much more difficult for them over the next few years to get down to drilling and new discoveries, against the background of anxieties that are beginning to develop that, unfortunately, the reserves may not last for as long as some optimists believe?

Mr. Gray: I remind my hon. Friend that none of those who have applied for licences has failed to take them up. I accept that there is anxiety and that nobody likes taxation, but I believe that the taxation being imposed on the oil companies is fair, and will be seen to be fair, and that the North Sea will continue to be one of the most attractive investment areas in the Western world.

Mr. Rowlands: Was not the proportion of operator-ships given to United Kingdom companies far lower in the seventh round than in previous rounds? Will that not do considerable damage to United Kingdom industrial involvement in the North Sea oilfields?

Mr. Gray: No, I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman. Indeed, the number of operatorships in the private sector is substantially higher. Moreover, I am glad to be able to tell the House that in the seventh round six small independent companies have obtained operatorships.

Mr. Budgen: Will my hon. Friend explain why these licences cannot be sold by auction, as such a system would, first, reduce the dangerously wide discretions exercised by his Department and, secondly, raise much needed revenue, without recourse to the fashionable fallacy of retrospection?

Mr. Gray: I do not agree with my hon. Friend. The discretion to which he refers is important for British industry. It is right and proper that companies that have given full and fair opportunity to British industry to participate should be in a position to have that discrimination exercised in their favour.

Mr. Douglas: Will the Minister give an assurance that his licensing and taxation policy will not endanger essential orders coming to United Kingdom companies, particularly British Shipbuilders? Will he give a specific assurance that any further development of the Claymore field by Occidental Oil will be carried out by United Kingdom-based equipment?

Mr. Gray: Obviously I cannot give the hon. Gentleman an absolute assurance of that kind, but I can tell him that the operators are well aware of the Government's wish that as much benefit as possible should come to British industry, from wherever the exploration is taking place.

North Sea Gas

Mr. Eggar: asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he plans to increase private sector participation into the purchase and resale of North Sea gas.

The Under-Secretary of State for Energy (Mr. Norman Lamont): This area of policy is being considered. Meanwhile, it is open to the private sector to seek greater participation under the terms of section 8 of the Energy Act 1976, which has so far been little used.

Mr. Eggar: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that reply. Is he aware that it is now some six months since his right hon. Friend first referred to the fact that this matter was being considered? Is it not about time that an announcement was made?

Mr. Lamont: This is an extremely complicated matter. I am sure that my hon. Friend is aware that there are all sorts of delicate issues that need to be considered. A further point to be borne in mind is the statutory position of BGC and its obligation to supply. I assure my hon. Friend that this is not a simple question.

Mr. Eastham: If more middle men are introduced and participate in the resale of gas, will not the cost to industry and to consumers be increased as a result of their profit motive?

Mr. Lamont: That is a point of view, but where a monopoly exists it is subject to proof. At the moment, there is considerable controversy about gas prices. It is therefore right that this should be examined.

Nuclear Power

Mr. Hooley: asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will undertake that no further action will be taken on the nuclear power programme until the Government have completed their consideration of the report of the Select Committee on this subject.

Mr. Norman Lamont: No, Sir.

Mr. Hooley: Is the Minister aware that the report has blown sky-high most of the assumptions on which his absurd 13–15 gigawatt nuclear power programme was based, both in terms of the need for this group of power stations from the point of view of demand and in terms of the capacity of the nuclear power industry to build one station per year for the next 10 years?

Mr. Lamont: The hon. Gentleman ignores the fact that the Secretary of State's statement of December 1979 made it clear that future ordering of nuclear stations would depend upon electricity demand at the time and on the performance of the industry. It would depend upon the circumstances at the time. The two immediate next steps—the construction of the AGRs and proceeding up to the inquiry into the PWR—were not recommended against by the Select Committee, but we shall, of course, come to the House with a response to the Committee's report.

Mr. Rost: Is it not clear that the hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Mr. Hooley) has not read the Select Committee's report? Will my hon. Friend confirm that the main thrust of the report was not an anti-nuclear stance, but simply the expression of concern that, because of its present structure and the choice of reactor, the British nuclear industry will not be able to build nuclear power

stations as cheaply and economically as our competitors, and that we shall therefore not necessarily get the cheaper electricity that countries such as France will have unless we do something more positive about it?

Mr. Lamont: I agree with the first part of my hon. Friend's question, and also with his second point. If we are to get the full benefits of nuclear power in this country, we must build stations more to time and to cost than we have in the past.

Mr. Eadie: Does the hon. Gentleman realise that, in effect, he has just announced a retreat from nuclear power on behalf of the Government in that he has announced that the Government will make a statement later about nuclear power policy? However, has not the reappraisal of the whole question been caused by the economic recession that the Government have engineered?

Mr. Lamont: The hon. Gentleman is quite mistaken. My right hon. Friend made it perfectly clear at the time of the statement on nuclear power in December 1979 that what he was announcing was the electricity industry's best estimate of the requirements of nuclear power over the next decade. At the same time, he clearly said that it would be developed step by step in accordance with the state of the economy and the state of demand for electricity. If the hon. Gentleman reads the Official Report, he will find that that is so.

North Sea Oil (Licences)

Mr. Watson: asked the Secretary of State for Energy whether he is satisfied with the rate of licensing in the North Sea.

Mr. Gray: I am satisfied that the rate of licensing that we have achieved provides a sound basis for continuing exploration on our continental shelf.

Mr. Watson: Is my hon. Friend aware that two of the exploration licences granted prior to 1980 were granted to companies with strong South African connections? Will he tell the House in which year those licences were granted and who was the Secretary of State for Energy at the time?

Mr. Gray: My hon. Friend is correct. A firm with South African interests was last granted a licence during the fifth round of licensing. As I recall, the right hon. Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn) was Secretary of State at the time. If I am not mistaken, the hon,. Member for Merthyr Tydfil (Mr. Rowlands) was then a Minister at the Foreign Office.

Mr. Eggar: Is my hon. Friend impressed by the consistencey of the Opposition's energy policy and by the long memory of the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil (Mr. Rowlands)?

Mr. Gray: I do not wish to comment further on that issue.

Mr. Rowlands: The next Labour Government will prevent any further South African involvement in North Sea oil, and will do everything in their power to stop it. Is the Minister aware that we shall, instead, start to promote more British interests rather than allow the creeping and sinister elements that are intruding into North-Sea oil development?

Mr. Gray: Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that a future Labour Government—I assume of the Left rather


than of the Right—will discontinue the practice followed by successive Governments, in that there will be a discriminatory attitude on nationality in future licensing awards?

Mr. Speaker: Order. We shall get into great difficulties if the Government ask the Opposition to answer questions.

Nuclear Reactors

Mr. David Hunt: asked the Secretary of State for Energy what discussions have taken place between his Department and Rolls-Royce on the development of barge-mounted mobile nuclear reactors.

Mr. Norman Lamont: Rolls-Royce discussed its proposal for the development of a barge-mounted mobile nuclear reactor with my officials in the first part of 1980. The company subsequently decided, for commercial reasons, not to proceed with its proposal.

Mr. Hunt: Bearing in mind the pioneering work of Rolls-Royce in this important area, will my hon. Friend press the Commission to analyse the needs of the ACP and member States for local and regional electricity generating capacity of up to 200 megawatts, with a view to reducing their heavy dependence on oil as a result of this alternative energy source?

Mr. Lamont: I shall certainly examine what my hon. Friend has said. I do not immediately see the connection with Rolls-Royce, but at the next meeting of the Council I shall bear in mind what my hon. Friend has said.

Sir Anthony Meyer: If European money can be used for a project of that sort, is that not precisely the way in which the Community can contribute towards the development of the Third world, which has specific needs in this regard?

Mr. Lamont: We shall bear that in mind and consider taking it up at European level. So far as I know, the project was not put to us specifically on the basis of its being a European project. It was one for development in this country. Discussions took place on whether the British Government could support it. As I have explained, the company felt that it was not a viable scheme.

Coal Production

Mr. loan Evans: asked the Secretary of State for Energy what new financial arrangements have been made with the National Coal Board to ensure maximum production of coal.

Mr. Welsh: asked the Secretary of State for Energy what additional amounts he expects to be provided to the National Coal Board following his discussions with the industry.

The Under-Secretary of State for Energy (Mr. John Moore): I am at present reviewing the NCB's financial arrangements. It is too soon to say what the outcome of that examination might be.

Mr. Evans: What action do the Government propose to take to substitute more British coal for imported coal, in view of the large stocks in South Wales? Do the Government propose to help with the additional costs that will be involved in withdrawing the pit closure proposals?

Mr. Moore: At the recent tripartite meeting all sides sought to limit imports to an irreducible minimum. At that meeting, on 11 March, Sir Derek Ezra stressed that there were uncertainties in trying to establish the exact cost. He estimated the cost of import substitution to be between £100 million and £200 million.

Mr. Welsh: Is the Minister aware that miners sometimes question statements by the Government? Will he give an assurance that money will be made available to keep open the pits that were due to close before the recent discussions between the NCB and the Government, either until agreement is reached with the NUM or until they must close because of seam exhaustion?

Mr. Moore: I am sure that all hon. Members realise that the hon. Gentleman is seeking an assurance on a matter that is in no part of the Government's responsibility. Individual pits and the details concerning their management are matters for the NCB and the unions under the normal consultative procedure.

Mr. Lyell: Before more taxpayers' money is made available, can my hon. Friend say what is happening to the £74 million per annum that is being lost on the 23 pits that the NCB hoped to close this year? Is it not the case that of the 13,000 people employed in them, more than two-thirds were to be re-employed? Can my hon. Friend assure us that this matter will be tackled in a sensible way?

Mr. Moore: Again, we are encroaching on detailed discussions about the management of the board's business. However, my hon. Friend is right to draw the attention of the House to the fact that in all these areas we are concerned about valuable taxpayers' money being used as subsidies.

Mr. Eadie: Will the Minister confirm that the NCB did not propose to close all the pits that his hon. Friend suggested? We are aware that negotiations are still going on and that there is everything to play for. However, will the Minister comment on the enhanced payments under the miners' redundancy pension scheme? Does he agree that that has been misrepresented in some quarters, in that the lump sums have been added to the weekly pension thus presenting it as a total payment? That is grossly misleading and unfair.

Mr. Moore: The hon. Gentleman will recall that last Wednesday we debated the orders for enhanced redundancy payments. At that time both sides of the House sought to make it clear that the payments stretched over many years—in many cases, over 10 years—and that the information that had appeared in the media was somewhat exaggerated.

Mr. Forman: Is not the wider use of British coal now every bit as important as maximum production? Can my hon. Friend assure the House that his Department and others are making every effort to publicise widely the Chancellor's recently announced scheme to encourage the direct use of coal in British industry?

Mr. Moore: I am delighted that my hon. Friend has again drawn the attention of the House to the scheme announced in the Budget by my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor. My hon. Friend is right. Happily, production is not the key problem. It is how we use the coal. It is, therefore, crucial that our coal industry remains efficient and competitive so that we can develop in the new markets, especially the industrial markets.

Gas-gathering Pipeline (Hydrocarbons)

Mr. Skeet: asked the Secretary of State for Energy when he expects to meet the chairman of the British Gas Corporation to talk about the disposal of the hydrocarbons which will be landed from the gas-gathering pipeline.

Mr. Gray: My right hon. Friend and I meet the chairman of BGC from time to time and discussion covers a range of issues, including on occasion the disposal of hydrocarbons which will be landed from the gas-gathering pipeline.

Mr. Skeet: With regard to the disposal of the gas to industry, does my hon. Friend not recognise that there will have to be a new formula in order to assess the price of gas? Its price should not be linked with fuel oil, because the Chancellor has told us that the fuel oil tax will not be reduced.

Mr. Gray: I take my hon. Friend's point, but these are matters for negotiation between the BGC and the producers and users.

Mr. Douglas: Does the Minister accept that, while some matters may be the subject of negotiation between the producers and the users, we must consider the overall national advantage? Will he give an assurance that, at least in the medium term, the disposal of ethane will be down the line to Moss Morran, Braefoot Bay and the central industrial belt of Scotland, and not round the corner to Cromarty Firth?

Mr. Gray: My right hon. Friend made perfectly clear the pattern of disposal that the Government would wish to see. These considerations must always be governed by the financial implications and the price that people are prepared to pay.

Electricity Generation (Costs)

Mr. Hal Miller: asked the Secretary of State for Energy what are the latest production costs of the Central Electricity Generating Board for generating electricity from nuclear power, coal-fired and oil-fired stations, respectively.

Mr. Norman Lamont: The latest available information is set out in appendix 3 of the CEGB's annual report and accounts 1979–80, a copy of which is available in the Library of the House. This shows that in 1979–80, on the basis and assumptions used, stations commissioned since 1965 produced electricity at roughly the following costs—nuclear power, 1·3p/KW hr; coal-fired, 1·5p/KW hr; oil-fired, 1·9p/KW hr.

Mr. Miller: I thank my hon. Friend for those figures. Does he agree that they show that we should concentrate on nuclear power, and also that we should make every effort to keep down the costs of the other fuel-fired stations?

Mr. Lamont: My hon. Friend is right. The Government have made it clear that they wish to see the development of nuclear power in this country. That has been the subject of questions earlier this afternoon.

Mr. Palmer: Is the Minister aware that the placing of the orders for the two AGR stations at Torness and Heysham, which were approved by the previous Administration, is being held up by an absurd financial

dispute between the National Nuclear Corporation and the CEGB? The right hon. Gentleman talks about the previous Administration dithering. When will he stop dithering?

Mr. Lamont: The hon. Gentleman has put his finger on an extremely serious matter. There is some disagreement between the CEGB and the NNC, and that is a business matter between the board and its suppliers. I assure the hon. Gentleman that the Government take this matter very seriously. Immediately after Question Time today we are to have a meeting with those concerned in order to discuss this subject.

Mr. Rost: When will the Government introduce measures to restore genuine competition in the electricity industry, so as to improve efficiency and enable the consumer to get a better deal?

Mr. Lamont: We have announced our intention to remove the monopoly that the electricity supply industry enjoys in the supply of electricity. We have in mind a legislative vehicle for that idea at a fairly early date.

Coal Liquefaction

Mr. Dormand: asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he is satisfied with the progress being made on coal liquefaction; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. John Moore: The NCB has developed two very promising oil-from-coal processes, and discussions are at present taking place with the board on the best course for further action. I am satisfied with the progress of these discussions.

Mr. Dormand: Does the Minister agree that that answer reflects yet again the Government's complacency in this matter? Will the Minister give not only more financial support, but moral support to this most exciting project? Does he agree also that the fact that the European Community and BP are prepared to give money towards the construction of the project that he mentioned shows that it should be supplemented by assistance from the Government?

Mr. Moore: Highly complex considerations are involved here on the technical front and in the organisation of the consortium that is to participate in the next stage. The Government are well aware of the urgency of the matter, but very complex issues are involved. The Government are in the middle of discussions with the board on the subject.

Sir David Price: Since coal gasification has been known for a long time, and bearing in mind the significance of the comparative price, will my hon. Friend remember that a long lead time is involved here? Will he therefore consider promoting a joint venture between the NCB and the chemical industry?

Mr. Moore: My hon. Friend is right. The lead times are lengthy. Economics is the key, and my hon. Friend will be aware of the extremely good work that is being done on this subject by the British Gas Corporation. We are concerned in this question with coal liquefaction.

Mr. Eadie: Since the Minister's Front Bench team has been trying to tell us today how dynamic the Department is, does he accept that his answers do not smack of dynamic government? The Government have had two years in which to reappraise this project. Is it true that, as


press reports indicate, Ministers are bringing in other scientists to reappraise the project, which had already been agreed upon? Is it not time that the liquefaction programme went ahead and that all the shilly-shallying, with only the expectation of results in the near future, was brought to an end?

Mr. Moore: I am glad to say that the Government are associated not only with dynamism, but with rationality. Rationality is a crucial and key feature of decisions of this nature, which affect the nation's future.

Mr. Adley: Would there be any political objections from the Government or the NUM to a full partnership between the National Coal Board and private sector interests, as suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh (Sir D. Price)? Will my hon. Friend pursue this matter as hard as he can?

Mr. Moore: I am sure that all hon. Members, the NUM and the NCB would like to consider the positive tenor of my hon. Friend's suggestion, which seeks to involve the private sector in the development of our important coal resource.

Energy Pricing Policy

Mr. John Hunt: asked the Secretary of State for Energy when next he intends to review energy pricing policy.

Mr. Norman Lamont: My right hon. Friend and I have made clear the Government's approach to energy pricing on many occasions in this House. The Government, of course, keep their implementation under continuous review.

Mr. Hunt: In considering the question of gas prices, will my hon. Friend take into account the widespread bewilderment in my constituency and elsewhere at the scale and timing of the increases in charges to domestic consumers? I acknowledge that a case can be made for higher gas prices, but will my hon. Friend do all that he can to ensure that that case is presented to the public in simple and intelligible terms?

Mr. Lamont: I agree to do that for my hon. Friend. I am sure that he knows that domestic gas in this country has not been making a profit. That is one reason why prices had to rise. The second simple reason is that the cost of new supplies from the deeper northern North Sea is very much greater. Those are the reasons, and we should be able to get them over to the House. I know that the increases are not welcome, but they are inevitable and necessary.

Mr. Merlyn Rees: How should I explain to industrialists who ask me about energy pricing that, while they have been given something in the Budget, some of them should pay more for derv, thus washing away any gain they may have had from the Budget?

Mr. Lamont: There will be considerable relaxations in firm gas prices. I admit that the companies that will benefit thereby will be different from those that will have to pay more for their derv. I am referring to the intensive energy users, particularly those that use energy as a feedstock. They will benefit immeasurably.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSE OF COMMONS

Strangers Gallery (Note-Taking)

Mr. John Hunt: asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if the question of note-taking in the Strangers Gallery has yet been referred to the appropriate Committee; and if he will make a statement.

The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, Paymaster General and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Francis Pym): The Services Committee has once more looked at the present arrangements, and has recommended that no change be made in the rule relating to note-taking by visitors to the Strangers Gallery.

Mr. Hunt: While expressing extreme regret at that decision, may I ask my right hon. Friend to acknowledge that this ridiculous rule that there shall be no note-taking in the Strangers Gallery is a relic of a bygone parliamentary age that has no place in a Parliament of the 1980s?

Mr. Pym: I respect my hon. Friend's opinion, but I do not share it. I do not think that it is widely shared in the House. The essential purpose of the Strangers Gallery is to enable people to obseve and listen. Were permission granted for note-taking to be done, that could result in a considerable number of people waiting a long time to take notes, thus reducing the numbers who could come in. I hope that my hon. Friend will be reassured that the Services Committee has looked at this subject twice in the recent past and has come to its view after careful consideration. It is a view that I must support.

Mr. Dubs: Is the right hon. Gentleman seriously suggesting that the Strangers Gallery would be full of people desperately anxiously taking notes of our proceedings? Surely the absurdity of the Minister's position is obvious. Does it not devalue the traditions of the House if we continue one that is so absurdly idiosyncratic?

Mr. Pym: The Services Committee consists of members of the hon. Gentleman's party as well as of mine. On two occasions those members have come to a different conclusion from that of the hon. Gentleman, and I think that the House would wish to support them.

Scottish Grand Committee

Mr. Canavan: asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster whether he is now able to make a statement about holding meetings of the Scottish Grand Committee in Scotland.

Mr. Pym: I hope that the House will shortly have an opportunity to debate the report on the inter-party talks on the handling of Scottish parliamentary business. The possibility of holding some Committee meetings in Edinburgh is one aspect of that report.

Mr. Canavan: Does the Leader of the House recall that the Scottish Grand Committee has technically been in a state of Adjournment since 9 December last year when the Committee failed to report because the Government were defeated by 40 votes to nil after a debate on their proposals to close the Scottish colleges of education? May we resume that debate in Scotland during the Easter Recess


and, if there is time, go on to debate the problems of the 290,000 people in Scotland who have been thrown out of work because of the Government's disastrous policies?

Mr. Pym: It is urgent that we consider this aspect of the handling of Scottish business. I am sorry that we have not been able to arrange a debate in the past month—the hon. Gentleman asked me a question on the subject the last time that I answered oral questions. I hope that it will be possible to do so in the reasonably near future. These matters and the points that the hon. Gentleman has raised will be relevant in that debate.

Mr. Gordon Wilson: What reason can the Minister conceivably give for the delay of one and three quarter years since the abandonment of the Scotland Bill for the consideration by the House of this mouse of a report requesting that the Scottish Grand Committee should meet more frequently? Has not the whole strategem been a cynical one on the part of the Government to waste time?

Mr. Pym: I do not think so. The report was produced in August last, and if it had not been for a change of office between my right hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas) and myself we might have had the debate by now. I hope that it will come in the reasonably near future.

Mr. Dewar: Will the right hon. Gentleman accept that the official Opposition are glad to hear that there is to be an early debate, as there has been a quite unreasonably long delay in discussing the reports of the inter-party talks? He says that it is a matter of urgency. Will he give us a guarantee that we shall have the opportunity within the next couple of weeks?

Mr. Pym: I hope to do that. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland hopes and intends in the fairly near future—by which I mean in the course of this week—to have discussions with the right hon. Member for Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Milian).

Oral Answers to Questions — PALACE OF WESTMINSTER

Galleries (Access)

Mr. Dormand: asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what reciprocal arrangements exist for access to Galleries of this House by Peers and to those of another place by hon. Members.

Mr. Pym: The Peers' Gallery in the House of Commons is reserved for actual Members of the other place.
I understand from the authorities of that House that Members of the House of Commons are permitted to stand behind the Bar in their Chamber, provided there is room. Seats are also available for Members and their guests in a Gallery there.

Mr. Dormand: Is the Minister aware of the difficulty caused when hon. Members of this House cannot stay with their friends and constituents in the Public Gallery in another place? As this happens so infrequently, surely no problems are caused, especially as most hon. Members stay there for only a very short time. Will he seek to have the practice changed?

Mr. Pym: That is something that could be raised by the House with another place, but I understand that 24 seats

are available for hon. Members and their guests. The hon. Member shakes his head, but that is what I have been advised. I take note of what he says and will see whether any alteration can be made. I think that the geography and the space available would limit the scope for any considerable enlargement, but I shall take the matter further.

Mr. Dickens: Will my right hon. Friend please explain to the House why, on innumerable occasions, we see empty seats in the Galleries of this and the other place, and yet members of the public are consistently shut out on occasions, such as at Question Time? Has my right hon. Friend any plan to review the whole question of seats in the Gallery in order to give the public more opportunity to listen to our debates?

Mr. Pym: On the whole, the Gallery is usually full at Question Time and at the beginning of debates. I have little doubt that the reason why later on in the afternoon and in the evening the number of visitors thins out is that quite often debates here can be reasonably boring. When we have really interesting debates, which are keenly attended by hon. Members, the Galleries tend to be full.
The House has from time to time reviewed the arrangements for tickets and the issuing of tickets, and I am not aware of any general desire in the House to alter our present practice.

Mr. George Cunningham: Is the Leader of the House aware that sometimes guests of hon. Members of this House are not able to see the proceedings because Members of the other House bundle in and stand in the corner of the Gallery, thus getting in the way of guests of this House? Will he take steps to prevent that?

Mr. Pym: That is a matter that I can raise with the Serjeant at Arms. It would be the appropriate quarter. I shall take it up.

Mr. Dykes: Is any progress being made on giving access to Members of the European Parliament, under controlled conditions?

Mr. Pym: Not at the moment.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSE OF COMMONS

Services Committee (Recommendations)

Mr. Greville Janner: asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what recommendations of the Services Committee are currently awaiting implementation.

Mr. Pym: Last Session the Committee in two reports put forward proposals for a new building for Parliament and for granting access and certain facilities to Members of the European Parliament. No action will be taken on these reports until they have been debated in the House. Also outstanding are the recommendations contained in the report on the cleaning and restoration of the exterior of the Palace of Westminster, on which I understand my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment will be reaching a decision very shortly.

Mr. Janner: Pending the reaching of a decision on the cleaning and restoration of the exterior of the Palace of Westminster, will the right hon. Gentleman say whether the reports are correct that the stonework above the entrance to Westminster Hall is dangerous? Can he say when the decision will be made and announced.

Mr. Pym: The hon. and learned Gentleman is right. There has been a fall of masonry from the north end of the outside of Westminster Hall. This has been dealt with by the Works Department, and therefore that position is now safe and secure.
A decision will be made very shortly—if not this week, next week.

Mr. Grimond: As £6 million was spent on this building last year, and as £60 million has been spent on it in recent years, if it is now falling down, is it not time that we appointed a new architect?

Mr. Pym: I am not sure that a fall of masonry at the north end of Westminster Hall could justify such a categorical criticism by the right hon. Gentleman. I have not myself been involved in the architectural or other considerations of the maintenance of this building, but one has only to look at it to appreciate how very expensive it is.

Oral Answers to Questions — PAYMASTER GENERAL

Government Publicity

Mr. Robert Atkins: asked the Paymaster General if he has been satisfied with the co-ordination of Government publicity during the last month.

Mr. Pym: Yes, but we are constantly reviewing its effectiveness.

Mr. Atkins: Does my right hon. Friend think that Ministers have done enough to get over to industry the value of the cut in the minimum lending rate?

Mr. Pym: I think that industrialists are aware of it. Ministers have made every effort to get this message across, and the Confederation of British Industry has made an estimate of the value of the cut. I understand that the figure put on it was £700 million. We are doing our best in that regard.

Mr. John Silkin: Is the Paymaster General aware that the Opposition are very satisfied with the co-ordination of Government publicity during the past month, and in particular would like greater co-ordination of publicity on the more interventionist theories of the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food rather than on those of the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer?

Mr. Pym: It would be ungracious not to accept the right hon. Gentleman's compliment.

Mr. Stokes: Does my right hon. Friend remember the well-known dictum of Lord Melbourne about Cabinet responsibility:
It is not much matter which we say, but mind, we must all say the same."?
Does my right hon. Friend agree with that dictum?

Mr. Pym: I have not so far cast myself in the role of conductor, but perhaps I ought to consider the possibility.

Mr. Ioan Evans: As the details of the Budget were reported in the Sunday press prior to the Budget, will the right hon. Gentleman say whether that was co-ordinated or unco-ordinated publicity?

Mr. Pym: The remarkable thing about the so-called leaks was not their accuracy, but their inaccuracy.

Mr. Adley: asked the Paymaster General if he has any plans to amend the arrangements for disseminating Government information; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Pym: I have no plans to do so at the moment.

Mr. Adley: Is my right hon. Friend satisfied with the co-ordination of information about the incentives that the Government have made available to small businesses? Is he aware that there is a great deal in the Budget—and, indeed, in previous policies announced by the Government—for small businesses, and that many of them are perhaps not aware of it? Will he consider ways of improving the position?

Mr. Pym: I am doing just that. With previous Budgets my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced his decisions to help small businesses, and he extended that policy in his most recent Budget. It is Government policy to help small businesses and to encourage new ones to start. We shall launch a programme to make more widely known the changes that have been made to benefit those who start small businesses.

Mr. Charles R. Morris: Bearing in mind the current level of public expenditure on Government publicity, and the current unpopularity of the Government, what criteria of success should we have in mind when judging the Government's publicity?

Mr. Pym: In the last analysis it is the success of Government policies that will count. The presentation of those policies is closely related to those policies. Everybody knows the difficult time that the country is going through and the depth of the world recession. We have many important decisions to take, and obviously people are hoping that we shall be reasonably successful in the reasonably near future. We have to present the policies of the Government in the light of that situation.

Mr. Marlow: When it comes to disseminating Government information, will my right hon. Friend take great care to have a major political initiative on Thursday, so that the public can have some proper political news and not be bored stiff by the posturing that is likely to take place from the Jenkinsites on that day?

Mr. Pym: It is very difficult to arrange news in such ways. Events have a habit of unfolding. However. I take note of my hon. Friend's recommendation.

Nationalised Industries

Mr. Neubert: asked the Paymaster General if he will take steps to inform the public of the cost to public funds of support for the nationalised industries.

Mr. Pym: The information is available in the public expenditure White Paper (Cmnd. 8175), and the 1981–82 Financial Statement and Budget Report.

Mr. Neubert: If, despite all his efforts, my right hon. Friend should still hear the view expressed—whether in passing conversation or on other occasions—that the Government should give more financial support to industry, will he point out exactly how much support is being given to public industries, to the detriment of essential investment in other industries?

Mr. Pym: There is no doubt that, via the taxpayer, the Government have provided a substantial measure of


support for industry. In our present economic circumstances there is a case for providing still more assistance. However, we must never forget that that assistance has to be paid for. Somebody has to raise the money. At present there is a tendency to increase the demands on those in work to help those out of work. This is a difficult period, but the Government have responded in a practical way to the needs of the situation, which has arisen as a result of the circumstances of world trade.

Mr. John Silkin: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree with the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and

myself that, but for Government support for the aircraft engine industry, steel, shipbuilding, the motor car industry and coal, the whole of our industrial base would have fallen into total disuse?

Mr. Pym: Of course we did not allow that to happen. If it had been possible, it would have been better for the Government to interfere and intervene less rather than more. However, when the need to intervene arose, we showed that we were willing to do so despite our preference for non-intervention.

Civil Service (Dispute)

Mr. John Peyton: (by private notice) asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he would make a statement on the financial effect of the current Civil Service dispute.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Sir Geoffrey Howe): It is too soon to make a reliable judgment of the financial impact of the dispute, but it is already clear that a substantial proportion of the revenue due has been received.

Mr. Peyton: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that those who take part in or connive at such disputes can hardly expect to be shielded from the consequences of their action? Will he be very cautious before he allows Government borrowing to increase, as a result of the dispute, beyond an irreducible minimum? Does he agree that the time has come when the mere holding of a grievance should not entitle those holding it to inflict lasting damage on their country?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I have a great deal of sympathy with the points made by my right hon. Friend. I shall certainly accept his advice to be profoundly cautious before allowing borrowing to go beyond an irreducible minimum. Substantial monthly fluctuations in the level of Government receipts are quite normal.
I also agree with my right hon. Friend about the position of those involved in such industrial action. I assure him that, as elsewhere, those in the Civil Service who refuse to carry out their normal work or who are on strike are not entitled to payment during those periods. I entirely share his view that it is important for people to break the habit of moving from a grievance, however genuinely felt, to the infliction of damage on the rest of the community and on their fellow citizens.
I share my right hon. Friend's view that, given the offer already available in the Civil Service pay dispute, there is no need for a strike on grounds of pay or conditions of service.

Mr. Russell Kerr: The offer is derisory.

Sir Geoffrey Howe: The hon. Member must take into account that the money on offer to those in the public service comes from the taxes levied on the rest of the community. Many people have accepted pay settlements far below that now on offer.

Mr. K. J. Woolmer: Does the Chancellor of the Exchequer accept that civil servants are showing great restraint? Does he agree that they could bring a halt to the payment of pensions, supplementary benefits, child benefits and many other important benefits? Will he confirm that the Government are receiving less than half of the general tax revenues that they might otherwise expect to get? Does he not agree that as a result of the unilateral tearing up of long-standing pay agreements in what appears to have been a vindictive campaign against the Civil Service the Government have jeopardised good industrial and management-employee relations?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: Sadly, in a society as complicated as ours, many people have it in their power to bring whole aspects of society into disorder, and worse. Our society can hope to survive only if people refrain from taking such

action and, above all, if those who enjoy basically secure jobs and who have been made a not insubstantial offer refrain from taking such action. It could do great damage to their fellow citizens.
The pay arrangements for the Civil Service are about, 25 years old. Only on a few occasions have they operated without some sort of change. That is a matter for regret. However, as we told the House only a few weeks ago, the Government are anxious to move towards the establishment of arrangements for determining the pay of non-industrial civil servants with the object of establishing as soon as practible an ordered and agreed system which takes account of all the relevant factors and which commands the widest possible acceptance. The Government have every desire to achieve that objective, as I am certain have the great majority of those who have been persuaded to take industrial action.
I hope that those taking industrial action will reconsider the position and take account of the offer now available. I also hope that they will be prepared to consider the matter sensibly.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. This is an extension of Question Time. I propose to call two hon. Members from each side, including the Front Bench spokesman for the Opposition.

Sir William Clark: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that civil servants not only enjoy security of employment but good holidays and inflation-proof pensions? Does he agree that the offer of 7 per cent. is well in excess of wage settlements in the private sector? Is it not time that we considered the terms of contract of civil servants? If civil servants are to enjoy all those benefits—which are much better than those found in the private sector—should we not consider whether they have broken their terms of contract and whether they are still entitled to those benefits?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: My hon. Friend has drawn attention to many important aspects of the terms and conditions of the employment of civil servants. It is right that all those factors should be taken into account in any review of those terms. The refusal of civil servants to perform their normal duties justifies—as for anyone: else—the withholding of pay. That is well understood. I hope that those who are still being persuaded to take action will consider, fairly and sensibly, the Government's willingness to look for an agreed and ordered pattern for determining their pay in future. I hope that they will reflect on the security of their employment and on the generosity of the offer, and that they will agree to take a more reasonable view.

Mr. J. Grimond: Will the Chancellor of the Exchequer pay tribute to those civil servants who have not gone on strike? Will he state the percentage increase in Civil Service salaries during the past two years? Will he consider the situation of those engaged in the administration of justice to see whether it is consonant with their position and the respect that they expect from the public that they should go on strike over totally unjustified claims?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: Naturally I have some sympathy with the right hon. Gentleman's last point. I am happy to pay tribute to the fact that almost half the civil servants demonstrated their loyalty to the service during last week's


one-day strike by working normally. It is right to pay tribute to them. I believe that an even larger proportion would be willing to do so now.
Over the past two years, the average increase in pay in the public service, and in particular in the Civil Service, has been just short of 50 per cent. Over the last 12 months there has been an increase of about 25 per cent. That is about twice as high as the corresponding average in the private sector. If those facts and the job security involved are taken into account it is not unreasonable that this House should unite in inviting those taking part in industrial action to call off their action and to be prepared to discuss future arrangements. The Government are certainly willing to do that.

Mr. Michael Neubert: Now that computers have given relatively few people in the public service and elsewhere the capacity to damage the Government's economic strategy and even to reduce the nation's defence capability, may I ask whether any progress has been made with the manifesto proposal to negotiate "no strike" agreements with key workers in essential industries?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: The point made by my hon. Friend illustrates circumstances in which it could be advantageous to introduce such arrangements. The Government are prepared to consider seriously that possibility.

Mr. Alan Williams: Is it not a fact that this strike need never have happened and that the costs alluded to by the Chancellor need never have been incurred? Has it not taken the Prime Minister's usual tactic

of trying to bully those she believes to be weak unprecedently to unite every Civil Service union behind the strike? Has not the Prime Minister, having during the election pledged her support for the Pay Research Unit, refused to publish its findings, unilaterally abandoned this 25-year-old procedure and imposed an incomes policy not on the private sector or even on all the public sector but only on that part that she thought to be weak? Finally, unlike the bullying of her Cabinet wets, has not our hectoring Prime Minister on this occasion chosen opponents who are not willing continually to be humiliated and belittled in public?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: It is a long time since I had the privilege of answering questions by the right hon. Gentleman from the Opposition Front Bench. Unfortunately, there has been no improvement in his style.
I entirely agree that this strike need never have happened and that the costs incurred as a result need never have been incurred. But I regret that the right hon. Gentleman has chosen to take this occasion, when the nation is being harmed substantially by a strike that he acknowledges is unnecessary, to heap abuse on my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister.
The Opposition know that the existing arrangements for the determination of pay in the public service have frequently been suspended and have operated unsuspended on only a minority of occasions. It is for that reason that we are anxious to join the unions in seeking an agreed and orderly arrangement for the future. Meantime, I hope that we can count on the support of the Opposition for the plea that I make for normal working to be resumed as soon as possible.

Foot and Mouth Disease Outbreak

The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Peter Walker): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement about foot and mouth disease.
As hon. Members will doubtless have heard, an outbreak of the disease was confirmed by the Ministry in the early hours of yesterday morning. In the middle of Saturday afternoon, a veterinary officer from my Department was called to a farm near Yarmouth on the Isle of Wight. After examining the cattle, samples were rushed to the Animal Virus Research Institute at Pirbright where, at 1 am on Sunday, it confirmed foot and mouth disease. Slaughtering of all cattle on the farm in question began at daybreak on Sunday morning. They were slaughtered humanely and buried; so, too, were the pigs on an adjoining farm, which were considered to be dangerous contacts, and the cattle on another farm on the island which had been visited by a relief milker who earlier had been on the infected farm. So far, 213 cattle and 337 pigs have been slaughtered. I know that I reflect the view of the whole House when I express sympathy to the farmers and their families whose livestock has had to be destroyed and who have seen a life's work come to a tragic end.
Movement restrictions were applied immediately on all farm animals in an area comprising the whole of the Isle of Wight and the southern part of Hampshire and Dorset—roughly from Christchurch to Portsmouth. As the House would expect, the most stringent precautions are being taken to prevent the spread of the disease. The veterinary service is tracing all relevant movements which took place shortly before the outbreak was confirmed, including 16 cattle which were sent to Shaftesbury market, and has placed movement restrictions on the farms of destination. Close observation will be kept on the animals concerned.
I would repeat the advice given to farmers on the radio and television at frequent intervals yesterday to be especially vigilant and to report any suspicious symptoms in their animals. I would also ask the public in the affected area to keep off farm land where there is livestock and to collaborate with farmers in their observance of the restrictions.
It is too early to forecast the likely pattern of developments, but I shall, of course, keep the House informed.

Mr. Roy Mason: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his statement. I should like to associate my right hon. and hon. Friends with his expression of sympathy to those who have lost their livestock. It would appear that the Ministry's veterinary officers moved in as rapidly as possible to contain the disease and help the affected farmers.
In view of the deep anxiety within the farming community, reflected in anxious inquiries to Members of Parliament, will the right hon. Gentleman arrange an all-party briefing so that Members may be fully briefed on the situation?
More immediately, will the right hon. Gentleman say what steps are being taken to curb imports which could be disease carriers and what co-operation he is getting from France in this regard, especially in the disinfecting of passengers and the movements of yachts and small boats?

I take it that the right hon. Gentleman is still relying on a policy of slaughter and compensation and is not contemplating vaccination.
As regards the movement of milk in the affected areas, to what extent can the right hon. Gentleman assure consumers of there being no risk?
Finally, what power do the Government have today that they did not have in the last major outbreak in 1967? Does the right hon. Gentleman believe that further legislation might be required?

Mr. Walker: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his comments on the speed with which the Ministery's veterinary officers acted. The fact that between 1 am on Sunday morning when the disease was confirmed and 8 am the next morning the Department briefed the whole of the media, organised the slaughtering of cattle and stopped movements from the area was a remarkable achievement.
Briefing on an all-party basis is a constructive idea which I should like to take up. I shall endeavour later this week to organise a briefing for interested Members of Parliament and arrange for my chief veterinary officer and others to provide the briefing.
There is no lack of collaboration with France on imports. In areas where there are outbreaks in France there are total restrictions on the movement of meat not only out of but into France, let alone into this country. Quarantine regulations apply to live animals, so there is no problem there. I assure the right hon. Gentleman that there is no lack of collaboration by the French authorities on this topic.
I am pleased to confirm that the Government are operating a slaughter and compensation policy. From time to time there are critics of this policy. However, it has kept us free from this dreaded disease for 13 years. Countries which operate a vaccination policy—France is an example—have had outbreaks on a much bigger scale than we have had in the last 13 years.
The Milk Marketing Board has a code of conduct which it operates the moment an outbreak of foot and mouth disease takes place. That is being fully operated now. As an example of the speed with which action was taken, before the confirmation at 1 am on Sunday morning, the lorry containing milk from the affected farm was stopped in Southern England. The whole of the milk was duly heat-treated and then destroyed and the lorry was cleaned. Therefore, there was no distribution of milk from the affected farm. The board will be following that code of conduct throughout.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I hope to call those hon. Members who have stood up, if they co-operate.

Mr. Stephen Ross: I thank the Minister for his expression of sympathy to those of my constituents who have been so tragically affected by this event. I should like to express my condolences to them as I have not yet been to see them.
Is the Minister aware that we have the highest praise for the speed and thorough way that his veterinary surgeons dealt with the outbreak, particularly as it was over a weekend and the farm concerned was not easy to get at? Having seen the disease, I believe that the right hon. Gentleman has done the right thing. The quicker the animals are slaughtered, the better, even if this policy has taken in cattle from a farm five miles away.
Is the strain definitely the same as the strain in France and the Channel Islands? Was it wind-blown? If so, that would seem to be fantastic. Have the 16 cattle which were sent to Shaftesbury market on Thursday been traced and checked? If so, what was the outcome of that check?

Mr. Walker: I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his tributes to the staff of my Department and the speed with which they acted. I shall certainly convey his views to those in my Department who took part in this action.
It is impossible to say what the source of the infection was, in that it can be carried by wind, and it can be carried by starlings and other birds. However, if I were asked to guess at the cause of infection, I would say that it was unlikely that it came from Jersey in that only two cattle have contracted the disease in Jersey, both of which were immediately slaughtered. There has been no further outbreak since then. The strength and the direction of the prevailing winds tend to imply that the source was less likely to be Jersey than Brittany. If it is from Brittany, it is the longest distance on record that the disease has been carried by wind, but there were very strong prevailing winds and it is just possible that that happened.
The 16 cattle were mixed with some other cattle, making a total of 35. They were then sold to a number of farmers and a number of dealers. Again, it is a very considerable tribute to those concerned that all 35 cattle have now been traced and by early this afternoon all will have been tested. Most of them were tested early this morning. For those so far tested, there are no positive results.

Mr. Peter Mills: I congratulate the Minister and his staff on the excellent way in which they have handled matters so far—which is nothing unusual. Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that he will have the full support of this House and, I believe, of the farming community when he takes whatever steps are necessary, even if some people may say that it is overdoing it, to stamp out this disease and its spread in this country? Finally, has any progress been made in trying to find a cure for this terrible disease?

Mr. Walker: There have been developments in areas such as vaccine, but on the science that is available to us at present there is no doubt that slaughter and eradication has proved a more successful policy, not only in this country but in a number of other countries which pursue it, than that of those countries which pursue a policy of vaccination. This policy has been adopted by successive British Governments, and they have been correct in so doing.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his tribute. He has very kindly mentioned it to myself and my staff. Whilst I am very willing to accept tributes, I must state that all of the action taken yesterday was taken automatically by the staff of my Department, and the tribute is to the chief veterinary officer and his colleagues who acted in this way.
I assure my hon. Friend that we shall take every possible vigilant action. Alas, were the disease to spread, we should have to take rather ruthless and seemingly unfair decisions, perhaps slaughtering animals that are unaffected, but in the cause of seeing that the disease is stopped.

Mr. Dafydd Wigley: I thank the Minister for his statement and for the prompt action, particularly in view of the feelings held in Wales on such matters, Wales having suffered very severely in the previous outbreak. Is the Welsh Office being kept fully informed about the current developments? Are the farming unions in the various parts of Britain being brought fully into discussions on this matter? Finally, will the Minister give an assurance that contact will be made with representatives of the Irish Government in case there is a more widespread development and in view of the traffic in animals between the Republic of Ireland and Britain?

Mr. Walker: Yes, we shall certainly be in close contact with the Irish Government and with all people between whom the movement of cattle takes place. The Welsh Office is fully informed of what is happening, and that will remain so. The efforts will be totally co-ordinated between Government Departments. It is only in that way that we can effectively endeavour to prevent the type of outbreak from which Wales suffered so badly 13 years ago.

Mr. Charles Morrison: The present situation is very worrying, but, on previous experience, is it not the case that with previous outbreaks of foot and mouth disease there has been an end of the outbreak in the early spring and summer? Does this not emphasise, therefore, the fact that it is all the more important to exercise maximum movement control on the basis that, with a little luck, this situation will have to exist for only a relatively short period?

Mr. Walker: Yes, it is important that everyone complies with the movement control. In collaboration with various authorities, we shall endeavour to enforce that successfully. My hon. Friend is quite correct when he says that the timing and the weather conditions are very important. I ask all hon. Members who consider that they have any influence on the weather to ask for a dry spell without wind.

Mr. John Home Robertson: Is the Minister aware that the whole House shares his hope that this will not develop into a major outbreak? Will he confirm that in the unhappy event of this outbreak developing into an epidemic his Department will have sufficient staff to cope with it, in spite of the cutbacks that have taken place? Will he also confirm that his Department has access to sufficient funds to foot the bill for compensation resulting from the slaughtering policy?

Mr. Walker: Yes, I assure the hon. Gentleman that there will be no financial limitation upon paying full compensation, which, as he knows, is the market value of the cattle concerned. So there will be no problem concerning that matter.
If there were a massive spread of the disease, more veterinary staff might be needed. I made arrangements this morning that, should ever that moment come, there would be staff available from the veterinary profession as a whole who could quickly be recruited to this task. But, obviously, I do not envisage that that situation will be reached. It was not reached in 1968, and the whole of my veterinary staff are now ready and acting and will be available to deal with the problems.

Mr. Robert Adley: I thank my right hon. Friend for his statement. Has


responsibility for disseminating information to the farming community been transferred from the local police, where it used to reside, to his Department's inspectorate? If so, what discussions took place with those concerned about this matter?
Does my right hon. Friend agree with me that it is urgent that the closure of footpaths in the restricted area should be undertaken at the very earliest opportunity? When will signs and so on be available to farmers?

Mr. Walker: There is power to close all footpaths in infected areas. Certainly that is happening with most farms at the behest of the farmers concerned. Signposts, posters, and so on will very quickly be readily available.
As to informing the public, my hon. Friend said that it used to be the duty of the police. There never was a duty on the police to inform the farmers concerned. The police has responsibility concerning general matters, and some police forces took on themselves the duty of conveying the information to farmers. Those duties previously undertaken by the police were not transferred to the inspector in my Department; they were transferred to local authorities involved. Local authorities have that responsibility.
As to communications, anyone who heard the radio or saw television yesterday will know that all the media were totally briefed throughout the day. In addition, the Department has organised that today there will be posted to every farmer in the affected areas a guide and booklet on how to identify and deal with this problem.

Sir David Price: Is my right hon. Friend aware that all of us who come from the infected area in South Hampshire would like to join with the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Ross) in congratulating him and his Department on their speed of action? Is he aware that we are now entering a migratory season for birds and that there is quite a strong possibility that with prevailing south-west winds the disease could have arrived bird-borne rather than human-borne or animal-borne?

Mr. Walker: Yes. There has been evidence in the past that starlings, in particular, have been carriers of this disease. This is a time when there are considerable movements of starlings and other birds, and they could be carriers. I am afraid that this in one of the dangers of this time of year.

Viscount Cranborne: Does my right hon. Friend accept that there is almost universal support in Britain for the slaughter policy as opposed to vaccination? Will he also undertake to investigate the particular position of the Isle of Purbeck, in my constituency, from which large parts of the Isle of Wight are visible and where there are clearly understood migratory routes for birds between the two islands? The area is heavily criss-crossed with footpaths going to the seashore. I wonder whether my right hon. Friend will examine the possibility of imposing restrictions on footpaths and access by the public in that area, even though it does not come within the area covered by the Government's restrictions.

Mr. Walker: I take note of my hon. Friend's remarks about the Isle of Purbeck and will immediately consider whether it is sensible to take the action that he suggests. I am grateful for his agreement about the importance of the continuance of the slaughter policy as opposed to vaccination. That is the Government's intention.

Sir Angus Maude: In view of the apparent desire of the European Commission to harmonise almost everything, often to the great inconvenience of the people of this country, will my right hon. Friend say what steps he has taken to persuade France and other partners to harmonise their foot and mouth control measures with ours, which, over the years, appear to have been the only truly effective measures?

Mr. Walker: I understand and sympathise with my right hon. Friend's view. I believe that ours is the correct policy. A number of Governments throughout the world have pursued vaccination policies over the years and argue strongly in support of them. Although I believe that our policies have for the past 13 years been by far the most successful, I do not criticise the French Government, because, when there is an outbreak of the disease in spite of a vaccination policy, they pursue a slaughter policy and take speedy action.

Mr. Patrick McNair-Wilson: Is my right hon. Friend aware that we in the New Forest thank him and his staff and the veterinary officers for all they did during the weekend to set up the restricted area? However, is he also aware that many commoners' animals, cattle and ponies are pastured in the forest and are able to roam over a wide area? As the ferry terminal for the Isle of Wight is in my constituency, has my right hon. Friend any plans to order the animals off the forest?

Mr. Walker: No, but we shall look into that point.

Mr. Robin Maxwell-Hyslop: Will my right hon. Friend share with the House his thoughts about vegetables and eggs coming in from France? Vegetables may be contaminated by birds from farms that are restricted against the movement of people and animals, and the hygiene regulations for eggs in France are notoriously unobserved. French eggs come into British packing stations for repacking. From those packing stations vehicles collect eggs from a widespread number of farms in Britain. Would it not be better to ban imports of eggs and vegetables from France while the emergency lasts?

Mr. Walker: In relation to trade of all types across frontiers, it is important to recognise that there has been movement of goods from areas that have had foot and mouth disease for many years without any form of infection being spread to this country during the past 13 years. Only in recent months, because of my concern over a number of matters concerning the import of eggs, the egg inspectorate has spent considerable time concentrating on the ports, with effective results. That is continuing.

Mr. Alex Pollock: Has my right hon. Friend been in contact with the Secretary of State for Scotland to ensure that all possible steps are taken to prepare contingency plans against any risks of cross-border infection between England and Scotland?

Mr. Walker: The Secretaries of State for Scotland, for Wales and for Northern Ireland and myself have been coordinating our efforts. I know that the Secretary of State for Scotland is making sure that all the appropriate Scottish authorities are taking preparatory steps in case anything should happen.

Mr. Nicholas Baker: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the slaughter policy is supported by my


constituents? I understand the needs of Welsh and Scottish farmers, but will he ensure that there is a concentration of his advisory and veterinary staff in Dorset where the problem currently resides?

Mr. Walker: A substantial number of my veterinary staff from all over the country moved in to the Isle of Wight, Hampshire and Dorset during yesterday and have continued to do so today. I am satisfied that there is now adequate veterinery staff to deal with all queries. Any farmer who has any doubt should contact my Department. We would much prefer to have hundreds of cases that proved to be negative than to miss one positive case.

Mr. Mark Hughes: First, will the Secretary of State confirm that the Milk Marketing Board's arrangements cover the change from churn to tanker collection? Secondly, will he confirm that the veterinary regulations for small boats crossing the Channel are sufficiently tight? Thirdly, will he ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science to advise local education authorities that at this time school and unversity field trips in the infected area would be ill advised? Finally, will he accept that if any increase in his legal powers is required he will receive the total co-operation of the Opposition?

Mr. Walker: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's latter remark. I have reviewed the considerable powers that are available to us. At the moment I see no gap in those powers, but if I spot one I shall take advantage of the collaborative remarks of the hon. Gentleman.
I shall also take note of the hon. Gentleman's suggestion to contact the appropriate local education authorities. I guess that there is no need to do so, but there is no harm in taking that precaution. We are taking great care about Channel boats and all sorts of movements across the Channel.
On the question of churn-to-tanker collections, I cannot confirm that that is safeguarded. I know that the Milk Marketing Board has a detailed code which resulted from the last infection. I guess that that code covers the present outbreak, but I will check with my Department.

Roach Bridge Paper Mill, Preston

Mr. Stan Thorne: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 9 for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should be given urgent consideration, namely,
the withholding of unemployment benefit from the workers dismissed in January at Roach Bridge paper mill near Preston.
I must show why this important matter must have urgent consideration. There were 50 men involved in the action. They have been deprived of unemployment benefit. The insurance officer has judged that because they are in dispute they do not qualify for unemployment benefit until the dispute ends or is resolved. The dispute is over the right to join a trade union.
The insurance officer has said that this matter is a Catch-22 situation—even though the men have been sacked, they are still involved. He says that if the men stopped picketing, the dispute would be resolved and they would then receive the dole.
I have a letter from the Department of Employment addressed to me which says that a constituent of mine is unable to receive unemployment benefit until the dispute is resolved, despite the fact that he received notification of dismissal on 5 January this year. He has a wife and two children and is suffering considerable hardship as a result of the decision.
The firm has replaced the sacked workers. Inevitably the matter is described as blackmail since it appears that the workers must leave the picket line or go without the dole. If the men are sacked, surely the dispute is over for them. Therefore, the Department of Employment has no right to withhold benefit.
On Thursday, the Prime Minister expressed concern about the sacking of Joanna Harris and said that she should have the right not to join a trade union. These workers should have the right to join a union without being sacked.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Preston, South (Mr. Thorne) gave me notice before 12 o'clock this morning that he would seek leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he thinks should have urgent consideration, namely,
the withholding of unemployment benefit from the workers dismissed in January at Roach Bridge paper mill near Preston.
The House will have listened with concern to what the hon. Gentleman said, but it is aware that I do not decide whether the matter will be debated. I decide merely whether it should be debated tonight or tomorrow. As the House also knows, it has instructed me to give no reasons for my decision. After listening carefully to what the hon. Gentleman said, I have to rule that his submission does not fall within the provisions of the Standing Order and, therefore, I cannot submit his application to the House.

Rheola Rolling Mill, Resolven

Mr. Donald Coleman: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 9, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
the threatened closure of the Rheola rolling mill at Resolven in West Glamorgan, with the loss of 590 jobs, as a result of the rationalisation of British Aluminium's rolling operations, and to discuss the effect of Government policies on this decision.


The matter is specific because it relates to an aluminium rolling mill in my constituency where, as the press notice of the closure decision issued by the company states:
There has been co-operation from the employees over the years in improving efficiency
and where considerable efforts have been made both by management and work people to improve efficiency. The matter is also specific because it is related to the aluminum industry in general.
The matter is urgent because, if the decision is allowed to go ahead, 590 employees of the company in my constituency will be put on the dole and many will probably never work again. Such a situation will lift the already too high level of unemployment in my constituency to even greater heights, raising it to more than 20 per cent. of the working population.
The matter is important, because, if the decision is implemented, the Neath valley, where the works are situated, will be further diminished as a place of industrial activity. The matter is specific, urgent and important, because policies of the Government have a direct effect on it.
The company states that the problems arise from the United Kingdom recession and international competition, intensified by exchange rate movements. How those affect industry is very much a matter concerning Government policies. There is also a matter of Government policy that is both specific and important in this matter, namely the development status of Neath.
It is for those reasons that the Government should be compelled to come to the House to tell us how they propose to save these and other jobs in the aluminium industry. I ask that the matter be debated urgently here, for, in doing so, the House will be paying proper attention to protecting the means of livelihood of our people and preserving the communities in which they live.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Neath (Mr. Coleman) gave me notice before 12 o'clock this morning that he would seek leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he thinks should have urgent consideration, namely,
the threatened closure of the Rheola rolling mill at Resolven in West Glamorgan, with the loss of 590 jobs, as a result of the rationalisation of British Aluminium's rolling operations, and to discuss the effect of Government policies on this decision.
The House is aware, though the people involved in such situations are not always aware, that I do not decide whether a matter shall be discussed. I decide merely whether there should be a debate tonight or tomorrow.
I in no way underestimate the seriousness of what the hon. Member said about the state of affairs at Resolven, but he and the House know that I have been instructed to give no reasons for my decision when I respond to an application. I have given careful consideration to what the hon. Gentleman said, but I must rule that his submission does not fall within the provisions of the Standing Order and, therefore, I cannot submit his application to the House.

Orders of the Day — Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Bill

As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

Orders of the Day — New Clause 1

Redetermination and lowering of regional, district or general rate

'In the 1973 Act, after section 108 there shall be inserted the following section—

108A.—(1) Where a local authority have in respect of any financial year determined a rate under section 108 of this Act but the Secretary of State makes and causes to be laid before Parliament, for the reasons mentioned in paragraph (c) of section 5(1) of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1966, a report as regards them under section 5(1) (reduction of rate support grant because of excessive and unreasonable total estimated expenses), or they have reason to believe that such report may be so laid they may, at any time before the Secretary of State informs them that the reduction specified in such report has been made, reassess the total estimated expenses mentioned in subsection (2) of section 108 and subject to that subsection determine under this subsection in respect of the financial year a rate lower than that determined under section 108

(2) If a local authority determine a rate under subsection (1) above, that rate and not the rate determined under the said section 108 shall be their regional, general or district rate (as the case may be) for the financial year and shall be levied accordingly.

(3) The Secretary of State may by order under this subsection repeal or amend any enactment (including this Act) in so far as that enactment relates to the determination, levy or payment of a regional, general or district rate and such determination, levy or payment is affected by a determination under subsection (1) above.

(4) An order made under subsection (3) above shall have no effect until approved by resolution of each House of Parliament.

(5) A reference in this Act (except this section and subsection (1) of section 108) and in any other enactment, whether passed or made before or after the passing of this Act, to such rates as are determined under section 108 of this Act shall be construed as including a reference to such rates as are determined under subsection (1) above.".'.—[Mr. Younger.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. George Younger): I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Speaker: With this, we may discuss Governments amendments Nos. 29, 44, 48, 49, Government new clause 2, entitled "Prohibition of using sums from loans fund to offset reduction of rate support grant or diminution in amount of resources element," Government new clause 3 entitled "Consent to certain local authority borrowing", and Government amendment No. 50.

Mr. Younger: My hon. Friend and I have always emphasised our wish to ensure that the effect of the Bill is to bring about moderation in local spending but not if it is to the detriment of ratepayers. The new clause, which complements the provision already in part II of the Bill, offers a major potential benefit to ratepayers whose authorities are proposing excessive and unreasonable expenditure.
It will give authorities which are facing a reduction in rate support grant an opportunity to look again at their spending plans and to set a lower rate for the year than that


previously announced. In this way, local ratepayers will be able to benefit immediately from the authority's decision to prune its budget in a way which they cannot do at present because, as the law stands, a rate once determined by an authority cannot be subsequently altered.
The new power which the clause seeks to create will be exerciseable not only where I have laid a report before Parliament as regards an authority, but also where an authority has reason to believe that such a report will be laid; and the powers will be available for use right up to the time when I formally intimate to that authority that a reduction in grant has been made. If an authority takes advantage of the power to reduce its expenditure and thus reduce the rate, it would be my intention not to proceed to withdraw the appropriate amount of grant.
In effect, the clause will give a straightforward choice to authorities that are proposing excessive and unreasonable expenditure: either they will have to give back a portion of rate support grant to the Government, or give back a similar sum to the local ratepayers. This should not be a difficult choice for an authority if it has any regard for its ratepayers.
The new clause does not impose any new burden on local authorities, but it will help to ensure that the Bill's provisions assist in reducing the burden on ratepayers of all types, whether domestic or commercial.
Amendment No. 29 is consequential on the new clause dealing with the redetermination and lowering of regional, district or general rates. The effect of the amendment is to provide that, like my extended powers to reduce rate support grant in certain circumstances, the new power will be available in respect of the financial year 1981–82 and thus could be used to reduce rate poundages already struck earlier this month.
It is sensible that the new power available to local authorities should be effective at the same time as the Secretary of State's extended powers to reduce rate support grant since it is only in circumstances where a local authority faces an order reducing its share of rate support grant that it could exercise its power to reduce its rate poundage. This amendment also ensures that ratepayers can receive early relief from the burden imposed by a rate poundage struck to support an excessive and unreasonable level of expenditure.
Amendment No. 44 is consequential. It makes necessary adjustment to section 238 of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1947 which deals with appeals against rates to provide that an authority must set different dates for the lodging and hearing of appeals when they are redetermining their rate poundage. Section 238 of the 1947 Act does not at present allow a local authority to change the dates set for lodging and hearing appeals once they have been fixed. But, clearly, the dates might be inappropriate in respect of redetermined rates. This amendment will therefore require a local authority to determine a different date for the lodging and hearing of appeals at the same time as they redetermine their rate poundage.
Amendment No. 48 adjusts some of the detailed provisions in the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973 dealing with the determination, levy and collection of rates. The amendment is consequential on the new clause.
The amendments to section 108(1) and section 109(2) make it clear that references to the levying of regional, islands or district rates and to the intimation by a district council of its rate to the regional council include rates redetermined under the new powers. The amendment to section 111(1) would enable the Secretary of State to make regulations providing for the repayment by a local authority of sums paid to it in respect of its initially determined rate and for the cost of levying and collecting a redetermined rate.
Amendment No. 49 is also consequential on the new clause. This adjusts section 8(3) of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1975 to put beyond doubt that the reference in that section to rate demand notes includes a reference to rate demand notes issued in respect of a redetermined rate.
That is all that I propose to say about the first group of amendments that we are discussing. I should like to add briefly a few words about new clause 2, new clause 3 and amendment No. 50.
Free-spending authorities should have every inducement to prune their planned expenditure without recourse to higher rates or to borrowing. New clause 2 will deny an authority free recourse to borrowing to make good a shortfall in revenue income resulting from reduction of rate support grant. It, therefore, supports the other powers that I seek in the Bill for the reduction of expenditure levels. The new clause will close off access to loans fund money to offset reduction of rate support grant or diminution in the amount of resources element. All borrowed money must pass through the pool which is the loans fund.
The new clause seeks to prohibit the use of borrowed money to offset any part of a reduction which I may make in an element of rate support grant or in the amount of the resources element payable to a local authority. It is recognised that such a prohibition cannot be applied indiscriminately. The clause provides that the Secretary of State may permit offsets on such terms and conditions as he considers appropriate.
It is also recognised that there may be contravention of the prohibition or even of the terms and conditions applied to a permitted offset by the Secretary of State. The clause therefore seeks to ensure that the loans fund shall be reimbursed forthwith or within such time as the Secretary of State may allow when the Secretary of State intimates to an authority that he is of the opinion that there has been such a contravention. Time and again my hon. Friend and I have made clear that it is not practicable to borrow for public expenditure that this country cannot afford. Therefore, this particular measure will be applicable from today's date to ensure that there is no lack of effectiveness in the clause, assuming that it is passed by the House. No new burden on local authorities will be imposed by the clause. It will help to concentrate the minds of local authority members on reducing high levels of expenditure.
New clause 3 seeks to produce a power which is a reintroduction of loans sanction but only over a very limited and seldom used sector of local authority borrowing. Paragraph 1(2) of schedule 3 to the 1975 Act empowers a local authority to borrow sums required to meet certain expenses where the local authority is satisfied that expenses should be so met and repayments spread over a term of years. The substitute paragraph will continue that power but make it subject to the Secretary of State's consent which would be given only if he were satisfied that


the nature of the expenses was such that they should be met by borrowing. The consent would be given on such terms and conditions as the Secretary of State would allow.
I have already indicated that the clause does not seek to reintroduce loan sanctions through the full range of local authority borrowing. The existing local authority powers to borrow for capital purposes under paragraph 1(1), for public utility undertaking purposes under paragraph 1(3) and temporary borrowing for revenue purposes under paragraph 3 will be unaffected by the provision. They are all monitored and limited by the various controls and checks in section 94 of the 1973 Act and in the Treasury's powers derived from the Borrowing Control and Guarantees Act 1946.
Accordingly, we have decided to seek reintroduction of loan sanction powers as proposed in the new clause. This does not impose a heavy burden on local authorities. It will bring my control over borrowing for these purposes into line with those controls exercised already over local authorities in England and Wales.
Amendment No. 50 is also to be discussed with the new clause. The proposed paragraph 27A is consequential on the new clause prohibiting the use of loan fund moneys to offset a shortfall or an anticipated shortfall in revenue as a result of reduction in the rate support grant under clause 13 or clause 14 unless the Secretary of State consents to such use of loan fund moneys, which he may do subject to such terms and conditions as he considers appropriate. The amendment ensures that the provisions of schedule 3 to the 1975 Act which controls the borrowing and lending powers of local authorities and other bodies and their respective loans funds are, where necessary, qualified by the self-contained provisions of the new clause.
The proposed paragraph 27B contains two additions to schedule 3. The first, paragraph (a) is consequential on the new clause dealing with consent to certain local authority borrowing and seeks to empower the Secretary of State to control the extent of borrowing by a local authority to meet expenses of a revenue nature arising out of the exercise of any of its functions other than those relating to a public utility undertaking.
Paragraph 15(1), which is affected by the amendment, provides that all sums advanced from a loan fund to a borrowing account shall be repaid within the fixed period and specifies the method of repayment. The amendment enables the Secretary of State to apply such terms and conditions to the repayment of sums borrowed with his permission under the new clause even though this would be contrary to the ordinary repayment provisions contained in paragraph 15(1).
The second head is paragraph (b) of the new paragraph 27B. It is not strictly consequential, but it puts beyond doubt the Secretary of State's power to control the period of certain borrowings in a particular manner. This is achieved by adding to the definition of "fixed period" in paragraph 31 words enabling a determination to be made for any class of cases and not just any particular case as at present and by permitting the Secretary of State to make determinations thereunder from time to time as necessary, which, again, he could not do at present.
The provisions in these new clauses and the amendments attached to them, taken together, amount to a most important safeguard for ratepayers all over Scotland who are at present deeply concerned about what they have heard and read of the rate increases proposed to be placed upon them. Not only are many individuals deeply

concerned about whether they can afford to pay, but many businesses and even small industries are at present wondering whether the rate increases they are expected to meet will make their whole businesses unviable.

Mr. J. Grimond: I fully share the Secretary of State's anxiety about high rates, but can he give us any idea how long it will take the Scottish Office to deal with the various matters that he has mentioned and to give the consents? It is extremely important to local authorities to get their finances in order. I hope that it does not mean enlarging the staff of the Scottish Office or a long delay.

Mr. Younger: I appreciate what the right hon. Gentleman has said. To be effective, the powers must be operated reasonably simply and reasonably quickly. We have had the information about local authorities' rating proposals for only about a week, and are already working on them. We do not expect he work to take very long; we expect to be able to make decisions fairly timeously, without long delays. It should be possible to deal with the matter with the normal level of staff. There is no extra burden there.
The important point about what we are doing is as follows. Local authorities that, for the reasons I have given, find themselves under the threat of having grant removed because of excessive and unreasonable expenditure will be able for the first time to hand back the money thus saved from their expenditure directly to their own ratepayers.
Many thousands of ratepayers are deeply concerned about what they may face. The provisions are a major reassurance to them that they do not necessarily have to bear the increases that some of them feared. I am certain that the provisions will have 100 per cent. support from all ratepayers in Scotland—certainly those who think that they are affected. I hope that the House will pass the provisions with great enthusiasm.

Mr. Donald Dewar: It would be misleading the House to say that we welcomed the new clauses, but in one narrow and specialised sense it would be true, because they represent an unusual phenomenon. The Secretary of State has been thinking about the consequences of his legislation, which he sees are unfortunate for him. He has realised that he got it all wrong.
It is amazing that we should be presented with these far-reaching, complex and important longstop provisions—not in the original Bill, not in Committee, but only now, on Report. I suppose that we should be grateful that conscience-stricken production of these provisions at least suggests that the right hon. Gentleman has steeled himself to look into the future and try to see exactly how clause 13 would work.
The Opposition object to clause 13 root and branch. We regard it as an obnoxious and offensive attack on local government independence. If we are to have such machinery, its clear consequence, as the clause was originally drafted, would have been a disaster for the ratepayers themselves, if it had ever been used.
The circular introducing new clause 1 was given the jazzy title
A second chance for local authorities",


as though it were a religious event, a second coming. In it we were often told:
It was his
—the Secretary of State's—
objective to remove excessive and unreasonable expenditure, but not to the detriment of the local ratepayers.
The Secretary of State imagined that clause 13 would be the legislative equivalent of the Seventh Cavalry, coming to the rescue of hard-pressed ratepayers. The tragedy was that the clause would have meant that the ratepayers were left badly hurt upon the field, having been trampled underfoot. Now a selection of new clauses has been hurriedly cobbled together in a desperate attempt to find a way around the otherwise inevitable consequences of the blunt weapon of clause 13 that the right hon. Gentleman imported into the Bill.
I shall not say that the practical consequences of what is proposed are ignored in the circular, No. 224/81, because I accept that the Conservatives always pride themselves on being practical men of business. They may know nothing about right or wrong, good or evil and the philosophy of politics, but they certainly claim to know about the nuts and bolts and the balance sheet.
Addressing himself to the practical consequences of new clause 1, the Secretary of State said in the circular:
All that would be required is adjustment of the remaining instalments due.
We are asked to envisage that a local authority has been caught by the penal sanctions in clause 13 and has been told that there will be a clawback out of this year's rate support grant. If having looked at all the options it accepted the somewhat unpleasant choice offered by the new clause and lowered its rate, then, according to the right hon. Gentleman,
All that would be required is adjustment of the remaining instalments due.
I took the trouble to ask one local authority about this. It happened to be Strathclyde, the authority in whose area I live, and the authority that collects the rates in that area. I asked whether it would be a simple matter of merely adjusting "the remaining instalments due", and I discovered a different story. In Strathclyde 1·1 million legal personae pay rates. Since 533,000 individuals have to be sent rate bills, a change in the rate will mean an enormous imposition on the staff of the region, or of any other local authority that is caught in the same way.
I am told that, because of some district variations and the inevitable administrative difficulties of an operation of this size, Strathclyde reckons that it will have to send out about 630,000 individual billings intimating the change in the level of rates. Apart from the ordering of stationery and so on, the pure computer processing will take six to eight weeks. It is not simply a matter of the individual billings. There are also 96,000 people who pay by rate vouchers.
Probably more Conservative than Opposition Members own shares in the De La Rue company. I bring them the glad tidings that that work goes to De La Rue. Therefore, if there is a capitulation under the force majeure of clause 13, at least some work will go to that company.
Once all that work has been done, there will be all the problems of processing standing orders. It is not simply a matter of those who are individually billed. There are also the agency arrangements. In Strathclyde some people pay their rates with their rent to the district council, the Scottish Special Housing Association or the new towns.

I am told that if there were a change in the rates as a result of arrangements introduced in response to the new clauses, about 578,000 rent books in Strathclyde would have to be called in and altered. In addition, 211,000 rent rebates would have to be adjusted.
I make these points because I object to the bland plausibility with which we are told:
All that would be required is adjustment of the remaining instalments due.
It will be a massive administrative burden, a massive operation. I am advised by the officials of two regional councils that almost certainly the only way in which the operation can be carried out, because of the complications of old instalments being paid while new ones are phased in over two or three months, is to suspend collection of instalment payments during that period, with considerable complications for cash flow and for the local authorities' borrowing requirements.
Therefore, when the Secretary of State makes almost dismissive remarks about the complications that would arise from a reduction in the rates, he is a world away from the reality for the hard-pressed regions and their hard-pressed staff, whose numbers he would like cut.

The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Malcolm Rifkind): The hon. Gentleman has produced a predictable moan in response to these provisions. He has suggested that they will impose a massive administrative burden. Is he aware that every year at least one or two English local authorities use their existing powers to levy a supplementary rate in the middle of the year to increase the rates paid by ratepayers, with all the administrative requirements that will be required of a Scottish local authority which wishes to reduce its rate? If English local authorities have been able to absorb the administrative requirements for many years when levying a supplementary rate and obtaining more money, why should Scottish local authorities be totally incapable of making the same arrangements when it will be to the ratepayers' benefit?

Mr. Dewar: I do not know the exact terms of the English experience. I do not intend to take it as a carried story from the Minister. Over the past seven or 10 days I have taken the precaution of talking to the officials who will be involved. If my memory serves me rightly, the imposition of one lump sum across the board in Lambeth may have simplified the operation. If the Minister bothers to talk to some of the officials, including computer staff and those in assessors' departments, he will be given the picture that I have just described.
I have not taken an unreasonable example. If I had wanted to be difficult, I might have suggested two changes in rates, one in a district and one in a region, the district being within the region. That may not be likely this year—we all know which authorities are likely to be on the shortlist of sacrificial victims—but, we are legislating for the long term. If the Bill is enacted with these new clauses, it will be available to successive Governments. The situation that I have postulated could occur in future.
The Minister may say that the answer would be to implement the new rates on the same day, but we do not know whether that would be possible. It will be for a local authority to decide the day on which it will alter its rate to take account of the blackmail provisions in clause 13. A region might agree to the implementation of the machinery in July and a district my surrender in July, August or September. That means that we may have to go


through an appallingly complicated and difficult operation twice in one year for one rating authority, the region, which has to collect on behalf of itself and the district.
Substantial complications and difficulties will arise from this proposal, and we must also consider new clause 2. I ask the Minister to deal with some of the practical difficulties that I foresee. It is a mean and petty measure, infringing the right of local authorities to manage their own affairs. It appears that the Minister is taking powers to insist on his specific consent being obtained before any authority can borrow on its consolidated loan fund to make up any shortfall resulting from a clawback under clause 13.
If that borrowing is taking place, how will the Minister identify it? I understand that in the first half of the financial year there is a constant cycle of borrowing and repayment on the consolidated loan fund which is dictated by the flow of income from rates within the local authority. It will be difficult to identify at what stage a local authority is borrowing to maintain its day-to-day expenditure and at what point it is trying to hide, within the cycle of borrowing and repayment, the money used to make up what has been clawed out of the year's rate support grant as a penalty for what the Secretary of State regards as excessive and unreasonble expenditure.
4.45 pm
The nature of the borrowing could be established only towards the end of the year when the outturn figures began to come clear, and they could be measured against estimated expenditure at the beginning of the year. If the technical difficulty is as substantial as I suspect, we shall be returning to the farce of making a judgment at the end of the financial year and to the machinery of section 5 of the 1966 Act. That means that all this huffing and puffing, beating of chests and bullying of local authorities will have been totally useless in practical terms. I suspect that that is the position in which we shall find ourselves.
All the new clauses and consequent amendments are part of the engine of oppression of clause 13, which we greatly dislike and regard as an offensive attack on local authority democracy. None of us knows after 18 sittings in Committee and about 700 of the rather expanded columns of the new-style Official Report exactly how the sanctions will be imposed and on what scale.
If there is excessive and unreasonable expenditure according to the whim and the prejudiced view of the Secretary of State, he may intend to claw back pound for pound. As there is a rate support grant sanction, we shall run into complications because of the 68½ per cent. grant factor. The Under-Secretary of State may outline his thinking at this late stage. Surely he knows what he intends to do when the Bill reaches the statute book, assuming that it does. He must have a fair idea which authorities are spending unreasonably and excessively and the sort of penalties that will be imposed.
The administrative complications and costs will present to authorities a great disincentive to take the way out that new clause 1 is meant to represent. Faced with all the complications to which I have referred and an inevitable substantial reduction in services—this is not an alchemist's stone and the Government are offering no miracle—the authorities will be unlikely to opt for the clause. Ratepayers cannot have lower rates without unpleasant side effects. There will be school closures. There will be a reduction of facilities for the disabled. Fewer nursery places will be available. The present standard of education

service will not be maintained across the board in the regions concerned. There will be reductions in housing and in leisure and recreation facilities in the districts concerned.
This is a bargain which is no bargain at all. There will be unpleasant cuts in services for the ratepayers of the local authority that opts for the clause. Given the complications and costs, it may be an extremely bad bargain. We oppose clause 13 and we shall vote against the entire Bill on Third Reading. However, if local authorities are to be bludgeoned and crushed into submission by the Secretary of State, I suppose that new clause 1 offers at least a choice. It may be a Hobson's choice, and the confidence of the Secretary of State that it will be taken up by local authorities may be much misplaced. However, it presents an option and I shall not be advising my right hon. and hon. Friends to vote against the clause.
Conservative Members have examined a vicious and unpleasant legislative initiative and found it totally unworkable. Having erected an engine of oppression, they have been running around squawking. They have attempted to think out the consequences and to cobble together a new clause that will allow it to be used, if that unhappy day ever comes. I advise my right hon. and hon. Friends not to vote against new clause 1 or to give one inch in our opposition to the whole concept. We shall wish to divide the House on new clauses 2 and 3, which are basic infringements of the rights of local authorities, although new clause 1 is an addendum and a consequential measure which, in the context of clause 13, may be defensible.
New clauses 2 and 3 are merely ways of further forcing local authorities into a straitjacket and we shall have nothing to do with them.
I draw the Minister's attention to the admirable leader that appeared in The Scotsman on 20 March. It is not every day that I have cause to compliment The Scotsman. However, I am not one to miss a rare pleasure which is all the more welcome for its scarcity value. The Scotsman has got it right on this occasion. It states:
The one common theme in ministerial behaviour for many months has been a decided ignorance about the consequences of their decisions.
That is what has happened here. Clause 13 was thrown into the Bill because the Government had to be seen to be doing something to be beastly to Labour councils. Months later, the unfortunate Secretary of State has now asked what happens when it is used. He has discovered that the main victims are the ratepayers in whose name, mistakenly, the whole daft operation was launched. This jumble of unfortunate new clauses is a consequence of that realisation.
We shall express our discontent with the way in which those matters are managed by voting against new clause 2.

Mr. Michael Ancram: I have always had much respect for the intellectual ingenuity of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar). When I considered the new clause over the weekend, I wondered how he would achieve a position in which he would not be against—for he is often a reasonable man—the principle of giving power to local authorities to reduce rates, at the same time as keeping in line with those in his party who dictate the policy at local government level, if at no higher level, who are telling him that this new clause is obnoxious and should be opposed at all costs


because it will make life exceptionally difficult for particular councils in Scotland, such as the one which covers my constituency—the Lothian council.
I was interested to hear the hon. Gentleman's clever, circular argument which allowed him to reconcile the two irreconcilables. After all the evidence which has been produced over the past few months, he has still failed to concede that there is overspending in any local authority in Scotland. He mentioned talking to officials of local government and to people on the ground. I invite him to come to almost any area of the Lothian region and to ask ratepayers whether they see any examples of overspending, duplication and waste. I have given a number of examples at earlier stages of the Bill, and I shall not rehearse them now.

Mr. Dewar: Specify.

Mr. Ancram: I shall give a good example which I believe I have not given so far.
Within the proposed expenditure for Lothian region this year there is the extraordinary statistic that those who are employed in the architectural division will have their salaries of pay increased, while the amount of work which they will do will be reduced. As the hon. Member for Garscadden is a reasonable person, he will accept that there is an illogicality in that.

Mr. Dewar: I deny it.

Mr. Ancram: The hon. Gentleman may deny that he is a reasonable man, but I still pay him that compliment. I am sure that he will accept that there is an illogicality in that position. It suggests that there is overspending of an unreasonable and excessive sort in that area, if in no other.
The hon. Member for Garscadden talked about the clerical difficulties which the clause would cause because fresh pieces of paper would have to be sent out to ratepayers. This morning I had a complaint from a constituent who had received two identical letters within a week on the same subject of the rate rebate. I have not yet managed to ascertain what the reason for that was. Obviously the fact that the first letter had been sent out had not been recorded within the authority. A second letter on the same subject, costing another 11½p in postage, was sent to the woman. If the hon. Gentleman proposes to refer to the difficulties which will be caused by this legislation, which will mean that local authorities will have to send out another letter, he might consider some of the errors which are being made now, and some of the wastage in this area which is occurring for one reason or another.

Mr. Barry Henderson: I understand my hon. Friend's characteristic forbearance in not rehearsing many of the scandalous, over-expensive ways of the Lothian region. Has he drawn attention to the Socialist propaganda sheet which was put out by Lothian regional council?

Mr. Ancram: That may be a fairly small item of the overall expenditure. The fact that £25,000 a year is being spent on pushing through people's doors a piece of paper which no one wants to read is perhaps the most obvious example of overexpenditure.

Mr. Dewar: Has the hon. Gentleman looked at the Lothian regional newspaper, an admirable production brought out by the then moderate-controlled—that is,

Tory—Edinburgh corporation? In 1970 it produced a newspaper which ran to at least seven issues in about 18 months. Its main lead story was the founding of a public relations department in the first issue. There was also a splendid photograph in it of all the councillors of the day, the most prominent of whom, sitting in the front row, was the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Rifkind).

Mr. Ancram: I remember that newspaper well. Having compared that publication with the so-called "Lothian Clarion", I know which I believe has the less biased editorial policy. However, I shall not rehearse those arguments.
I welcome new clause 1, particularly from my point of view and from the point of view of ratepayers in the Lothian region. On Second Reading, I said to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary that I was worried that the legislation as it stood would shut the stable door after the rate increase horse had bolted. He assured me that he did not think that that was so, but that has been a continuing worry in my mind. New clause 1 gives the local authority the chance to call the horse back into the stable to decide whether there is just cause for reducing the rates.
Since my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary made the announcement about the new clause some time ago, the reaction from the Lothian region has been one of increasing horror, anger and hostility. It is time that ratepayers, hon. Members, and the Lothian region asked themselves whose money we are talking about. We are talking not about the local authority's money, but about either ratepayers' money or public money being produced through the Government rate support grant.
When I was a student, a friend of mine opened a bank account which went into overdraft so badly that he was called in by the bank manager and told that he was not allowed to sign any more cheques until the overdraft had been reduced. He came out of the bank complaining because he felt that the bank was telling him what he could and could not do with his own money. It took some time for his friends to explain to him that it was not his money but the bank's money which was concerned.
The situation is much the same with the Lothian region now. It complains because the Government tell it that they wish to exercise more control over the taxpayers' money which the Government are giving it. The region is complaining now because the Government have said that, in the light of the representations made by ratepayers and the difficulties which might be caused to ratepayers under any withdrawal of the rate support grant, they will give the local authority the chance to say that it will reduce the rates and receive the Government's money rather than seeing a reduction in the amount of money from the Government and leaving the rates as they are.

Mr. Gavin Strang: that is one of the points at issue. The Government have fixed the level of rate support grant for the Lothian region. They decide the relevant expenditure, the volume of expenditure and how it is disbursed. A decision by the Lothian region in the forthcoming financial year to increase expenditure or to reduce it does not affect the level of the rate support grant to Lothian region in that year. Therefore, if the hon. Gentleman wants to argue that the Government should curtail expenditure on general grounds—for which a case can be made, although I do not accept it—he should do so. There is a tendency to blur that issue and not to point out


fairly and squarely that the Secretary of State wants to limit the freedom of the Lothian regional council to spend the money which it raises from its ratepayers.

Mr. Ancram: I have no intention of blurring the issue. The Lothian region is spending excessively and unreasonably, as I hope that the Secretary of State will find when the legislation is passed. Its expenditure should be limited. Ratepayers in the region, particularly in the city of Edinburgh, also wish to see its spending limited.
5 pm
After the limitation is made, the Lothian region will be faced with the choice between reducing rates and accepting the rate support grant set by the Government and leaving the rates at their unjustifiably high level and giving money back to the Government. It will be surprising if the Labour-controlled council did that, because it might be accused of assisting the Government. I particularly welcome the legislation because it will force the council to make that choice.
Whatever its political views, I hope that in making the choice it will consider its responsibility to ratepayers, which is a major one for any local authority. Although the council may not like the Hobson's choice, I hope that it will opt for the reasonable line taken by the hon. Member for Garscadden and give relief to ratepayers. If it fails to do that, continues in its political hostility to the Government and sees the action as one more way of attacking the Government, it will be carrying vindictiveness beyond the bounds of acceptabilty, even for that local authority.
Would the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Strang) support the Lothian region if it decided to give money back to the Government instead of reducing rates? I hope that he will agree that everyone who has the ratepayers' interests at heart should press the Lothian region to make a reduction in rates.

Mr. Strang: We have followed with interest the remarks of the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Ancram) over the months—it seems almost years—about the policies pursued by the Lothian regional council.
The Secretary of State said that if he obtained parliamentary approval for his decision that a local authority's expenditure was excessive and unreasonable it would be faced with a straight choice. Although we may not agree with it, we can understand the approach that he and the Under-Secretary of State have spelt out in the media in the past week or so.
On Second Reading I suggested to the Secretary of State that in considering what was reasonable and what was excessive he had to take account of an authority's expenditure policy. I shall deal in more detail with the Lothian region on my amendment, but I wish to challenge the Secretary of State about a local authority, such as the Lothian region, embarking on a policy of allowing the transport service to run at a deficit and allocating so much each year of its estimated expenditure towards the cost of the service. The Secretary of State said:
I have no intention, nor am I taking any power, to look into the particular expenditure of any particular authority on any given revenue item such as bus fares."—[Official Report, 9 December 1980; Vol. 995, c. 1215.]
I have also referred again to the Under-Secretary's remarks in Committee. As I understand it, the Government will fix "a particular standard" against which to judge a local authority's global expendit ure. Therefore, if an

authority has decided substantially to subsidise its bus service, it will have to make disproportionate cuts in other areas. Perhaps the Under-Secretary of State will confirm that that will be the result of the legislation. If the Government set a standard and the Lothian region continues to pursue its policy, they will have either to allow the standard to be increased because of the pattern of expenditure or to accept that Lothian region will provide, for example, fewer teachers or home helps than another region.
It is widely assumed in Scotland that the Government will use the legislation to threaten the Lothian region that if it does not cut its rates by a certain amount they will withdraw money. On Second Reading, it was already apparent that Lothian region was being singled out. My right hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Millan) pointed out then that the council's rate increase for the current financial year was the same as that for Strathclyde and not far out of line with that for the neighbouring Borders authority. I accept that the Secretary of State is concerned with expenditure rather than with the figure for rates, but it was a point well made. The situation has changed. The Lothian region is increasing expenditure more than other authorities, so the Government presumably see their case strengthened by recent events and by the expenditure level fixed by the authority for the coming year.
I beg the Secretary of State to take a reasonable and objective approach to the Lothian regional council. The hon. Member for Edinburgh, South generates enormous publicity on the issue almost every time he opens his mouth. He is guaranteed substantial coverage in the Edinburgh press. Because of all the publicity, fear has been created, and not only among the leadership of the council and traditional supporters of the Labour-controlled authority. In Committee the Under-Secretary of State said:
We are anxious that in his relationships with local government the Secretary of State should be fair."—[Official Report, First Scottish Standing Committee, 29 January 1981; c. 209.]
I hope that he will be fair and will not be too much influenced by the wild men in the Conservative Party in the Lothian region. Counting the Scottish Whip, no fewer than three Ministers represent Edinburgh constituencies, and there is also the Chairman of the Scottish Conservative Party, the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South. A great deal of mileage has therefore been extracted from the issue.
The Lothian regional council has lost £20 million this year—not through political decisions by the Secretary of State. All local authorities have been hit hard, but the Lothian region has been hit disproportionately harder than the others. That fact must be taken into account when the Government decide the level of expenditure to be attacked.
On the practicality of these clauses, my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) argued that there would be considerable difficulty in fixing a different rate in the middle of the financial year. I have sympathy with his fears, which were not entirely allayed by the Under-Secretary of State's response. I take the point that if it has been done elsewhere it can be done in Scotland, but there has been no experience of it so far.
Surely, however, the appropriate time to use this legislation would be immediately at the beginning of the financial year, or perhaps even before it begins. From the Government's point of view, it will be much harder to


operate the legislation effectively in the 1981–82 financial year than in other financial years, not least because it is much harder for a local authority to achieve a given reduction in global expenditure the further into the financial year one goes. Therefore, the scope for reducing expenditure, or for the Secretary of State to penalise authorities and seek to enforce a reduction, will clearly be greater in the following years than in the forthcoming year.
I therefore hope that the Secretary of State will approach this exercise in a gingerly fashion, with objectivity and caution.
The extent and ability of a local authority to reduce expenditure in mid-stream will also depend largely upon the type of expenditure that it chooses to cut. I assume—I should be grateful for the right hon. Gentleman's assurance of this—that there is no question of the Secretary of State singling out items of expenditure that he regards as excessive or giving guidance to the council as to which items it should cut.
It will be easier to make cuts in some areas of expenditure than in others. Contrary to popular impression, one area which will be difficult to alter is a subsidised public transport system. An increase in fares in the Lothian region simply will not wipe out the deficit. The figures show that in the forthcoming financial year Lothian regional council will wipe out the deficit accumulated over the past two years, and that in future years it will wipe out the previous year's deficit on a year-on-year basis. The council will therefore continue to subsidise fares.
I should make it clear that Lothian regional council is not planning to end fares on its buses, contrary to the impression created by at least one banner headline in a Sunday newspaper. It is pursuing a successful policy of running an efficient, reliable and cheap public transport system. Indeed, a national survey deemed it the most efficient and reliable public transport system in the country and the cheapest in cost per mile. If Lothian regional council doubled the fares, that would not balance the books. The resistance to the increase would be such that the local authority would still have to subsidise the system. Indeed, authorities which have pursued a policy of jacking up fares have found themselves forced to subsidise their transport undertakings. This is therefore very different from other items of expenditure. However, we shall be dealing with those later.
5.15 pm
I plead with the Government to look carefully at this issue. I believe that the policy being pursued in the Lothian region is an example to other authorities. Even if the Secretary of State does not agree, I hope that he will not seek to punish that council for attempting to run a subsidised public transport system. I mention in passing that the Secretary of State has intervened to prevent Lothian regional council from cutting the fares on Scottish Transport Group buses. This is a matter of great concern to my constituents in Musselburgh because they pay rates like everyone else and looked forward to their fares being brought into line with the rest of Edinburgh. But the Secretary of State, under powers quite different from the local government legislation on the basis of the fixed external financial limit for the Scottish Transport Group, has intervened to prevent that subsidisation.
I hope that the Government will look at this. Lothian regional council will be meeting the Scottish Transport Group tomorrow, and I have no doubt that it will continue to pursue this issue. I hope, notwithstanding the Secretary of State's global approach to public expenditure in the Lothian region, that he will allow us to continue this policy and give us a chance to give an example to the rest of Scotland. Other authorities are losing passengers, drastically in some cases. The only transport undertakings to have increased the number of passengers and thus the amount of revenue are the South Yorkshire and the Lothian regional bus services.
I assume that the Secretary of State's involvement with a local authority's expenditure will happen only once in a financial year, and that only once will the Government tell Lothian regional council or any other authority that they wish it to cut its expenditure and thus its services. Let us not forget that that is what the Secretary of State is about. This will not be achieved by savings in the architect's department or by not providing a local newspaper, as I assume that more than a few thousand pounds is involved here. We are therefore talking about a real cut in the level of service in the Lothian region. May we be assured that the Secretary State will seek to impose only one such cut in the Lothian region in one financial year?
To use the Secretary of State's own phrase, I accept that there is deep concern at the latest round of rates increases. I think that he applied that remark to the whole of Scotland. If there is concern in the whole of Scotland, there is certainly concern in the Lothian region.

Mr. Ancram: Before the hon. Gentleman sits down, will he answer my question? If Lothian regional council is faced with a choice between reducing rates or losing rate support grant, what will the hon. Gentleman advise his Labour colleagues there to do?

Mr. Strang: Lothian regional council is a responsible, able and intelligent authority. It is much closer to the issues than I am. The issues, of course, relate to cutting the services. I therefore hope that the Secretary of State will look objectively at this and will decide that the region's expenditure for the forthcoming year is not excessive. That may seem a way-out remark to Conservative Members, but it is not if one looks at the whole issue and at the enormous cuts in expenditure in relation to Government support for the region.
I take the hon. Gentleman's point however. In the crunch situation to which he refers, of course one would prefer the benefit to go to the ratepayers in one's own area than for the money simply to be handed to the Government. I do not think that that is a particularly provocative response, and I do not think that it will be resented by my colleagues on Lothian regional council.
I take the Secretary of State's point. Of course there is immense concern in the Lothian region about rate levels. All Labour councillors on the Lothian regional council are concerned. They cannot fail to be concerned about the increases in rates—or in rents, for that is how many council tenants see it—that are being imposed upon people there.
The councillors had to strike a balance and make a judgment about the extent to which services would be damaged by cuts. Some of the growth was agreed by Conservative councillors. The increased maintenance on


education buildings was deemed necessary by Conservative councillors on the Lothian regional council. By the same token, I believe that support should be given for a subsidy to the public transport system.
There is immense concern about the increase in rates. The plans to reduce those rates must be judged not just in terms of the rate burden but also in terms of the possible severe diminution in services. Notwithstanding the arguments between the Secretary of State and the council over the last year or two, and notwithstanding the rather wild statements made by some of his hon. Friends, we hope that the right hon. Gentleman will look objectively at the position of Lothian regional council.

Mr. Bill Walker: I shall not follow the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Strang) down the highways and byways of the Lothian region. Instead, I turn my attention to the new clauses.
I am saddened by the fact that legislation such as this should be necessary, because some local authorities have not behaved in a way which the ratepayers of Scotland consider sensible, logical and reasonable, given existing conditions.
Some areas of Scotland have difficulty in creating new jobs. One of the deterrents to firms coming to an area is the level of rates. I have a league table of local authority rates which shows that Dundee district council heads the league by a long way. That is sad, because Dundee is in need of jobs more than any other city in Scotland.
I recently met the chairman of an oil company and tried to persuade him to move some of the company's operations from Aberdeen to Dundee. He made it quite clear that the company did not come to Dundee in the first place because of the behaviour of the local Administration. He said that it was still in doubt because it wondered what the local administration was up to, particularly in regard to its attitude towards council house rents and their effect on other ratepayers. That person just could not see that as an encouragement for his company to come to the district. That is sad, because Dundee, more than any other city on Tayside, is desperately in need of jobs.
I am sure that Tayside ratepayers will welcome the provisions in the new clauses. They recognise that in the event of the Secretary of State deciding to take action under the new clauses they will not be penalised under clause 13. There is no doubt that as the Bill stood the ratepayers of Dundee, particularly the ratepayers in my constituency, would not have gained the advantages and benefits which the legislation intended. Primarily the Bill sought to ensure that in these difficult times local authorities behaved in a sensible and prudent manner.
It is sad that oil-rich Aberdeen has had an overall rates increase of 19 per cent., whereas the overall increase in Dundee has been 60 per cent. It means that in Aberdeen, where the benefits of the oil industry have been felt, the average rate per house is £237·15, whereas in Dundee, which has missed out on those benefits, the average rate per house is now £253·69. Here we have a city in North-East Scotland which has benefited from the North Sea boom to a tremendous extent, yet its rates are cheaper than those in Dundee district. Something must be badly wrong —in the-Dundee area, which is why I believe—

Mr. Russell Johnston: Is not the hon. Gentleman advancing a criticism of the rating system rather than anything else?

Mr. Walker: That is a good intervention. From what we can see now, the rating system and the way in which we finance local government need to be looked at. I have been persuaded of that because of the introduction of this Bill. In addition, firms in my constituency have told me how they object to paying the new rates. They have stated clearly and categorically that one of their problems is the distance from their customers. Secondly, they feel that they are penalised because of the level of rates in the old manufacturing cities of Scotland. As a result, those firms will think twice about expansion, and they will certainly think about moving if they cannot expand.
We must turn our minds to local authority revenue expenditure, because capital expenditure is not the real problem. In fact, many Conservative Members would argue that we should spend more on capital expenditure. The real problem is revenue expenditure.
Contrary to what has been said, if there is not enough work local authorities should dispense with the services of architects and quantity surveyors' departments and put the work out to the many professional firms in the private sector which would be only too happy to do it. That would remove a substantial burden of revenue expenditure. It would not be peanuts, because the cost of such departments is substantial. We are not talking about peripheral savings. These would be massive savings.
As a business man, I know that the first thing one looks at is revenue expenditure in order to see where substantial savings can be made. Revenue expenditure continues year after year. Capital expenditure is an investment in the future. Revenue expenditure is what one pays this week for what one got last week. To that extent, one has nothing to show for it at the end of the day, unless one has a future. Local authorities which are behaving badly are in need of some sort of administration to tell them "You are not doing what your electors want". I therefore welcome the new clauses.

Mr. David Lambie: The hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. Walker) said that the new clauses should not have been necessary and that the local authorities should have obeyed the Government's dictat. Had the Government represented the people of Scotland, I would have agreed with him. Unfortunately, they do not do so.
There are 71 Scottish Members of Parliament, and at the last election the Labour Party won 44 seats. Therefore, the Government do not represent the people of Scotland. The local authorities represent the people of Scotland, because they were elected by the people in that area. They have a mandate to carry out the manifestos which were placed before the electors at the local government elections. They also have a duty to protect the people against the Government's vindictive attitude.
It seems strange that, as a result of this Bill and the new clauses, the Secretary of State for Scotland will become more vindictive towards ratepayers and electors than the Secretary of State for the Environment, who has a mandate in England and Wales. The Secretary of State for the Environment does not possess the powers which the Secretary of State for Scotland is now demanding, yet the people of England and Wales voted Conservative. Therefore, the Government have a right to say that they represent the people of England and Wales.
5.30 pm
The local authorities in Scotland should stand up to the Government and should protect the people they represent. These clauses are the final nails in the coffin of local government democracy. The Bill provides the coffin in which to bury Scottish local government. With the clauses the Government are providing the nails. I hope that our people in local government will stand up to the Government and that we on the Labour Benches will in our turn support our local authority colleagues.

Mr. Henderson: Around 1978 would not the hon. Gentleman have supported the Labour Government when they made local government in England and Wales, as in Scotland, reduce its expenditure while they did not command a majority in England and Wales?

Mr. Lambie: During my time as a Member of Parliament I think that on local government finance I must have voted against my Government more times than I have voted against the Tory Government. On many occasions I have even acted as a Teller for some of my hon. Friends who supported my view in Divisions against the Labour Government's proposals. At that time the Conservatives, including the Secretary of State and the Under-Secretary, threw their weight behind my party's Administration. I am therefore clean on these matters. I wish that I could say the same for the hon. Member for Fife, East (Mr. Henderson). I hope that he will support us tonight and will vote against his Government.
The hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire was right to say that the rating system is at fault. Even if the Government carry the new clauses and enact the Bill, they will not help Scottish ratepayers. During the last Labour Administration I shared a lot of platforms with the right hon. Member who is now the Secretary of State for Scotland dealing with the proposed revaluation of properties in Kyle and Carrick and Cunninghame, areas which he and I represent. On many occasions the right hon. Gentleman committed himself, on getting to power, to abolishing local rates.
Why is he not now bringing in a Bill to do that instead of producing this Bill which attacks local democracy and ultimately will save ratepayers only peanuts? The problem in Scotland is that we have operated a system of rating revaluation every five years. That has not been done in England and Wales. The result is that Scottish valuations are out of all proportion to what they should be.
Industrialists are interested not in the rate poundage but in the valuation of the properties. ICI, Beechams and Roches, chemical firms in my area, tell me that their valuations are higher than those of their counterparts in England and Wales. I noticed in the local press at the weekend that Ayr racecourse has halted an expansion programme. It says that it cannot go ahead because of the rates increase. The true reason is that the valuation of the racecourse is four times what it would be if it were sited in England or Wales. It is the valuation, not the rate poundage, imposed by the Kyle and Carrick district council that is wrong.
Conservative Members should be campaigning against their Government to persuade them that, instead of trying to kill local democracy, they should be implementing their election manifesto promise—not at the last election but at the one before that—to abolish local rates. Instead of spending all their time attacking Scottish local authority

representatives, Conservative Members should concentrate their attention on the Ministers who have failed to implement Tory Party policy and who are now trying to obscure that failure by an attack on local government.
It is for that reason that I shall certainly oppose the clauses. I hope that my Front Bench will reconsider its decision not to vote against new clause I. We on the Labour Benches should demonstrate our full opposition to them. Never mind the administrative arguments put forward by the Opposition Front Bench—we should be advancing political arguments. The local authorities, like Scottish Labour MPs, represent the people of Scotland. The sooner we get rid of the Tory Government, the sooner will Scotland's ratepayers get a fair deal.

Mr. Peter Fraser: It is with little pride that I must say to my right hon. Friend that the powers that he is proposing to introduce in the clause are nowhere more necessary than within that part of my constituency that comes under the Dundee district council. With the rate increase for the district council alone—I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. Walker) will not think that I am contradicting him—well in excess of 150 per cent., I hope that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will make certain that the Dundee district council is at the top of his hit list when he exercises his new powers.
It was interesting that the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Strang) at least attempted to argue that the attacks against the Lothian region were unfair, ill-founded, or based, in one form or another, on an inaccurate portrayal of the facts. It is more interesting that any voices from the Opposition Benches that might have been expected to support Dundee district council in its attitude to the rates have remained silent.
The Labour administration in Dundee has set out on a deliberate and sustained attack on ratepayers, and it can only be for wholly misguided dogmatic reasons. That same dogmatic reasoning has led it, through its failure to do anything about council rents, to ensure that £2 million will be lost to the city in capital support for the construction of houses that even I agree are necessary in the town. Accordingly, any device that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State can use to relieve the Dundee district council ratepayers of their rates burden should be welcomed.
The curiosity of it all is that the lord provost of Dundee has recently set up a working party to do what it can to attract new industry to the city. That idea has the support of myself and my hon. Friend the Member for Perth and East Perthshire, and the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson), even though he was today described in the local press as a Tory lackey, has given support to that scheme of a Labour administration. The working party is considering such worthy matters as the development of the local airport, a move that would enable industrialists to fly their jets and to have regular access to the major airports of the United Kingdom. All that has been discussed in the greatest of detail, but the whole exercise is futile so long as industrialists refuse to come to the city in the face of the rate increases that we have witnessed this year.
It is all a complete and utter waste of time unless the district council takes note of that message. As it has utterly failed to do so, I do not see that there is any other opportunity open to those of us who want to see industry


being expanded and sustained in that part of the country, and the ratepayers enjoying a reasonable and fair share of the services that are to be provided.
It is not with any great enthusiasm that I support what the Secretary of State seeks to do by introducing these measures. It would be infinitely preferable if we could find, in every district and regional council in Scotland, that sense of responsibility that would make these new powers unnecessary. But it is abundantly clear that if we are to safeguard the interests of ratepayers in industry in cities such as Dundee they are now necessary.

Mr. Russell Johnston: A lot of interesting things have been said by the last two or three hon. Members who have contributed to the debate. The hon. Member for South Angus (Mr. Fraser) said that any device that the Secretary of State can use to control what a district is doing is justified. The hon. Gentleman was not terribly enthusiastic about what is being done, but he said that any device is justifiable in the circumstances. It is not devices that we need at this juncture but some sort of genuine reform in the system. But we have been presented with a set of devices.
The hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Lambie), in one of his customarily robust interventions, said basically "Vote Labour because the Tories have not scrapped the rates". But what did the Labour Government do about it? They did absolutely nothing.

Mr. George Foulkes: What did the Liberal Government do about it?

Mr. Johnston: The hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Foulkes) has obviously had a previous life if he can recall what the Liberal Government did about it. I am glad to note his reincarnation, but his point is an absurd one.
The hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. Walker) said that he was saddened that we had to debate these matters at all, and that local authorities should have behaved more responsibly. The hon. Member for South Angus also made that point. As one of those who did not serve on the Standing Committee, I feel that it is sad that at this stage in some complicated legislation the Government find it necessary, with all the resources they have, to produce very detailed amendments to their own. proposals.
That is a reflection not particularly on the Government—one realises that they have to deal with the mechanisms which are available to them—but on the quality of the work that is produced by the Scottich Office. If people who—by virtue of NALGO and Civil Service arrangements—are paid extremely well to produce legislation for the Government of the day are unable to do it in a form that is not filled with legislative loopholes, they are not doing their job terribly well.
The Secretary of State, in introducing the new clauses, said that they were really about controlling unnecessary and unreasonable levels of expenditure. T:hat goes to the heart of the matter, and it has been touched on by a number of hon. Members. Throughout the course of the Bill, the Government have claimed that they are seeking to remove certain minor restrictions on local authorities when essentially they are imposing new central controls. That is what I find most objectionable.
As the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Strang) pointed out, the Government already have powers under the 1966 Act to deal with excessive and unreasonable

expenditures. Those powers have never been exercised, as was pointed out on Second Reading. I do not see the reason for introducing new controls of this kind.
5.45 pm
It is very distressing in many ways that, in debating local government at this time, we should be dealing with methods of inhibiting the independence of local government. Behind it all lies the fundamentally unsatisfactory nature of the rating system, which successive Governments have failed to do anything about. There is also the failure of successive Governments to do anything about the spirit of the proposals of the Wheatley Commission, which were announced 11 years ago. Although the structure of the proposals was more or less implemented, the spirit of the proposals has never been implemented.
One of the fundamental suggestions made at that time was that the form of taxation and the level of taxation should be shifted from the central Government to local government and, in consequence, the onus of responsibility for local decisions shifted from the central Government to the local government. The Government, in the proposals that they have laid before us—even in what might be called the "retracting" clause, which is what new clause 1 is—are still essentially saying that they do not trust local government to make the right decisions, and that they need to have somebody looking over its shoulder. The hon. Member for South Angus mentioned that aspect, as did the hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire.
It is part of the mythology of the Conservative Party that Socialism means that somebody from the centre is looking over our shoulders and telling us what to do. It is the Conservative Party which, traditionally, has been the defender of the independence of local authorities and their right to make decisions in the interests of the people who elect them. Surely we do not want to impose central standards in this sort of way.
I shall vote with the Opposition against new clause 2. I would probably have voted also against new clause 1 but, unlike the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire, I believe that excessive voting in this place is an enormous waste of time.

Mr. Foulkes: I want to speak to new clause 1. That will make a change for me, bearing in mind my contributions in Committee, but it will also to some extent make a change from the debate that has taken place already on this group of clauses.
There is a great deal of ignorance in the House about local government. While my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) was making some sensible points, the Secretary of State and the Under-Secretary of State were giggling like schoolgirls, paying no attention whatever to what was being said.
In a rather trite intervention the Under-Secretary of State got it all wrong, because he tried to compare the present position in England with what he is proposing for Scotland. In the hope that he will take a few moments to reply to the debate, I shall deal with the current position in England and also with the position that he wishes to see in Scotland. When I have made that comparison, I shall ask him a question.
Under section 11 of the General Rate Act 1967 local authorities in England—unlike those in Scotland—have a general rating power. As Lambeth has recently shown, they can levy an additional supplementary rate. By


definition, the supplementary rate comes towards the end of the financial year, as it did in the case of Lambeth. As interest rates have increased, as inflation has shot up and as the Government's vindictive attitude has become clear, local authorities—such as Lambeth, which the Government wish to punish—which maintain a high level of services for ratepayers find that they have to levy a supplementary rate towards the end of the financial year. Indeed, it should be noted that ratepayers are also taxpayers.
In cases such as that in Lambeth, a single demand is sent to all ratepayers regardless of whether they are private householders or council house tenants. A single, once-and-for-all demand is sent to everyone. That is a simple and cheap operation. Unlike the proposal for Scotland, it is not complicated. Indeed, let us consider the proposal for Scotland. A local authority takes account of all the relevant factors and determines its rates. It knows the local situation and decides what the rates should be. It makes a difficult decision. As we have seen during the past month, local authorities usually make their decisions in February. I think that the Under-Secretary will confirm that that is so.
A local authority then informs the Secretary of State of its rating decision. In Scotland there are nine regional authorities, three island authorities and 53 district authorities. The Secretary of State must decide whether an authority's level of expenditure is unreasonable or excessive. It is a serious decision and not one that any Secretary of State would make lightly. Indeed, even our present Secretary of State, who makes some decisions very lightly, would not make that one so lightly. He would take some time to reach decisions about all the authorities. Two or three months later he might tell an authority that its expenditure is unreasonable or excessive.
The local authority will then be bludgeoned and bullied in "discussions". The Secretary of State will exercise his powers of blackmail. He will point out that if a local authority does not do what he tells it to do he will cut its financial provision. As a result the authority's rates will have to increase yet again. That will all happen at some time in the spring. The local authorities' financial year begins on 1 April. In his relations with local authorities the Secretary of State will bludgeon, bully and blackmail.
Let us suppose that the Secretary of State wins and that the authority gives in. Let us suppose that the authority concedes in the face of the Secretary of State's blackmailing, bullying and threatening. What will it do? Assessing a new rate at the beginning of the financial year is different from introducing a supplementary rate towards the end of a year. An authority has to assess whether people have paid their rates. It has to make an analysis of those who pay monthly. Have those who pay twice yearly paid the first and second instalments? Have those who pay in one lump sum paid their rates?
As my hon. Friend the Member for Garscadden said, the rent books of council tenants show the original rate level. It will be a huge administrative task to find out who has paid, to re-issue rent books and statements and to send out cheques to those who have paid and to whom a rebate is due. It will involve a completely different type of operation. The Secretary of State and his officials have not

thought out the administrative consequences. Those who are ignorant of the workings of local government have brought forward an absurd proposal.
During his silly intervention in the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Garscadden the Under-Secretary demonstrated the Government's ignorance. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will take the opportunity to answer the points that I have raised or, failing that, to issue an unqualified apology to my hon. Friend.

Mr. Bill Walker: Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that it has long been the practice of local authorites to make changes in rent books both in terms of rates and rents? For a long time different rents have applied to different houses because income has varied from house to house. Adjustments have been made regularly where there have been changes in income. There is nothing new about those adjustments.

Mr. Foulkes: Changes have been made in particular rent books, but there has not been a wholesale change. The Under-Secretary appears to be nodding. The Secretary of State and the Under-Secretary are supposed not to want changes that will involve administrative costs. I am not saying that changes do not take place in other circumstances, but the Under-Secretary was wrong to compare the situation in Scotland with that in England. If the Minister does not believe me he can read the report of the debate on the Ten-Minute Bill that was introduced by the hon. Member for Streatham (Mr. Shelton) on 25 February. The situation in England is different from that in Scotland. I hope that the Under-Secretary will either withraw his silly statement or apologise to my hon. Friend.
Like my hon. Friend the Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Lambie), I believe that the new clause is unworkable. It has not been thought out. I hope that my right hon. and hon. Friends will support neither the spirit nor the letter of this provision.

Mr. John Home Robertson: I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) that it would be a mistake for us to vote against the new clause. A vote against a power to reduce rates would be like a vote against better weather. However, the Secretary of State has laid a fundamentally bogus proposition before the House. The right hon. Gentleman suggests that he can take something away from local authorities and from ratepayers without hurting anybody. He says that it is not his fault if any one gets hurt. He is hiding behind a screen that bullies have used throughout the ages by saying that it is not his fault.
The fact remains that ratepayers in Scotland will be seriously harmed by the Government's antics. When the Secretary of State tried to cast himself in the role of the good guy and of the ratepayers' friend he gave us the benefit of the complacent grin, which we have learnt to know and love. Part of my constituency lies in the Lothian region. Ratepayers in Scotland, including those in my constituency, are only too well aware that a large part of the substantial rate increases that they face is a direct result of the Secretary of State's actions.
With characteristic charm, the right hon. Gentleman spoke about cuts in the rates. He said nothing about the cuts in the rate support grant. It is fundamentally dishonest for a Secretary of State to say that the Government propose to give people the power to cut rates when only a few


weeks or months earlier they deprived local authorities of their funds. As a result, local authorities had to force up rates or cut services substantially.
We are discussing substantial rate increases that will take place not only in the Lothian region, but throughout Scotland. Tayside is a Conservative-controlled regional authority that will increase the rates by about 38 per cent. It can be taken for granted that rates throughout Scotland, as a result of the cuts in the rate support grant, will go up by about 40 per cent.—or that there will have to be substantial cuts in local authority services.
6.00 pm
We can all agree about the benefits of cutting rates. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Lambie) that we should do away with the rating system and replace it with something fairer. [HON. MEMBERS: "What?"] Predictably enough, since the Secretary of State dealt only with the joys of cutting back on the rates, it might be of assistance to people in Scotland if some of us illustrate the unacceptable part of this package about which the Secretary of State has said so little—cuts in public services.
The hon. Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Ancram) made his standard speech about profligate spending by local authorities. He talked about a saving of one 11½p stamp at one stage. That was really scraping the bottom of the bucket.
It might help to look further at the proposals laid before the Lothian regional council by the Lothian region Conservative group for the current year. We might then get some practical examples of the so-called profligate expenditure which Conservative Members in the House and Conservatives in local authorities feel is non-essential.
First, let us look at transport. The first section in this draft budget which was prepared last year by the Lothian region Conservative group refers to cuts in concessionary fares. It refers to making concessionary fares available to pensioners and disabled people only during non-peak hours, thereby effecting a saving of £1·3 million. It refers to removing the additional provision for pensioners living outwith Edinburgh—a saving of £220,000. That might suit the hon. Members for Edinburgh, South and Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Rifkind), but it will not suit my constituents in East Lothian or others in West Lothian and Midlothian.
There is a suggested reduction of £½ million in the subsidy to the Scottish Bus Group pending an examination of the quality of service, following the well-known principle of cut first and ask questions later, and only then consider the practical effects of the cuts on transport.
There is a suggested cut of £3·3 million on social work. That includes cuts mainly in staffing, but there are some charming items of profligate expenditure, such as increased charges for home helps, meals on wheels and so on for elderly and disabled people in the region. These are examples of the services that the Conservatives in the Lothian regional council wanted to cut. They also wanted to reduce investment in play groups and in other areas of social work.
Moving on to education, the Conservatives in Lothian wanted to restrict the provision of transport to playing fields. The children might have to walk long distances from their schools to the playing fields. They also wanted

to reduce by 40 per cent. the provision for sick leave, maternity leave and so on, which would mean a reduction of 42 supply posts in primary and secondary schools.
The Conservatives in Lothian also wanted to "adjust"—a charming word when talking about cuts—the amount for milk in primary schools. That was to effect a saving of £164,000.
They wanted to raise charges for school lets for community use. Presumably community organisations would have to pay more or not be able to get the use of schools in the evenings and at other times.
Again, the Conservatives wanted to "revise"—another little euphemism—the provision for staff for severely mentally handicapped pupils. Nothing would be safe if the Conservatives were to come to power in the Lothian region. They also wanted to reduce the provision for schools furnishings by 50 per cent. So it goes on. Cuts are suggested in nursery teaching, secondary teaching, staffing and all the rest.
These are practical examples of what the Conservative Party wants to do to local authority expenditure throughout Scotland. It is despicable of the Secretary of State to say that the cuts that he is suggesting will not hurt anybody when he knows that they will hurt ordinary people in my constituency and his.

Mr. Ancram: In all seriousness, if the Lothian region were faced with a choice between seeing its rate support grant further cut or reducing the rates, what would the hon. Gentleman advise it to do?

Mr. Robertson: I shall neatly side-step that question—[HON. MEMBERS: "Ah."]—by saying that I would never advise any local authority to impose cuts in services of the kind about which I have been talking.

Mr. Ancram: Answer the question.

Mr. Robertson: It would be intolerable and despicable to suggest to a local authority that believes in its responsibilities to the people it serves that it should impose such cuts. It is unreasonable for the Secretary of State to try to skate over that aspect of what he is doing.
The Secretary of State is trying to apply slow strangulation to local authorities in Scotland. He wants them to impose grave damage on the services for which they are responsible, including services that they have a statutory obligation to provide. Their only alternative would be to impose massive rates increases.
In this measure the Secretary of State is threatening to get rid of local authorities' ultimate power to find other sources of funds to preserve essential services. In doing that, the Under-Secretary of State is doing what he hotly denied he was doing at Question Time a few weeks ago, when I suggested that he was setting himself up as a one-man non-elected fourth tier of local government. It may be a third tier. I have lost count of the number of tiers of local government nowadays. There is no justification for the authority that he is now seeking from the House.
The question remains: what will happen if a local authority refuses the so-called offer that has been made under the terms of the clause? The original tactic, whereby the Secretary of State would have power simply to cut the rate support grant, would obviously force up rates still further. The Secretary of State has now come forward with an eleventh-hour suggestion which would enable him to


put a further stranglehold on local authorities and to adopt further methods to coerce local authorities to do what he wants them to do.
What will happen if local authorities do not take this double-edged option? The Secretary of State must realise that at the end of the day people will have to accept these unreasonable cuts or be forced to put up with intolerable rate levels. Rating is one of the most regressive and unfair forms of taxation in this country. The Minister will not get away with this proposal. People in Scotland are aware of what is going on and in due course they will pass the right judgment on this appalling Conservative Government.

Mr. Gordon Wilson: Those of us who did not serve on the Standing Committee were appalled when we re-read the terms of clauses 13 and 14. This is a disgraceful mechanism of central control. It takes away almost completely the freedom of local authorities to carry out the mandates on which they were elected. I say that as one who represents an area with a Labour council which is a disgrace not only to the Labour Party but even to those who espouse the Marxist cause, because it has been following stupid policies on Palestine, local government and other matters.
The district councillors were elected at the district council elections. If one carries forward the philosophy which the Government have adopted, there will, in effect, be very little of locally elected democracy left after the Bill has gone through. That is the danger of it.
I suppose that it is easy to legislate for special circumstances, for the circumstances of cutbacks by the Treasury in any one year. But what the Minister is seeking to do here is to subvert the whole foundations of local government with financial control. He might as well decide to put central Government commissioners into certain areas and at least honestly admit that the local control which came from the democratic element has been utterly overridden.
Certain areas, such as Lothian and Tayside, must face this year a very heavy burden in terms of rates bills. Dundee district council, by not increasing rents, has given the impression that council tenants will be protected. However, from the figures issued by Dundee district council's housing division, I notice that tenants will be faced with very substantial bills this year. As the books come rattling through the doors, I am sure that there will be a great deal of anger and objection to what has been happening.
I give the House an example. In a one-apartment house, the weekly increase will be £1·16. For a five-apartment house, it will be £2·69 a week. That is in rates increases alone. In the housing estates of the SSHA in Dundee, the increases will also be very substantial. The rates for three-apartment tenament in Fintry will rise, on a monthly basis, from £11·52 to £18·40. Rates for a five-apartment cottage will rise from £17·84 per month to £28·46. This is something that district councillors in Dundee have not admitted—that the SSHA will be putting rent increases on top of these huge rates, so the poor unfortunate tenants of the SSHA will be having to pay twice over. It is extremely unfair that that has happened.
The House is faced with an impossible situation which is the creation not just of the Secretary of State but also of the Treasury. As the hon. Member for Berwick and East

Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) has said, some of these increases in rates come through the errors or sheer folly of local authorities, but most of the increases are coming because the RSGs and housing support grants have been slashed to a level which makes it difficult for local authorities to budget. They have to budget on a year-by-year basis. They have to carry commitments for capital finance and the servicing of loans, and so on. They can find the whole nature of their financing blitzed by what has been done by the Government in the reduction of these grants.
The Secretary of State, as a member of the Cabinet, has no doubt accepted Cabinet responsibility for the cuts which have been imposed on local government finance. But I think that he ought to admit that the problems for which the legislation is coming are as much of his own making as they may arise from local authorities. It is damnably unfair that reputable local authorities have been put into an impossible situation by the savage way in which the Government have cut back the funding available to them.
The hon. Member for South Angus (Mr. Fraser) was dipping his toe into the Monifieth area of his constituency that lies within the territory of Dundee district council. Dundee should not be singled out as one of the first hit-areas. If the hon. Gentleman follows through what he said and the Secretary of State takes that advice, there will be even greater penalities, visited not on the district councillors in Dundee district—who are so besotted ideologically anyway that they probably would not notice what was happening and would not care—but in the possible cutback of £3 million in the capital allocations for housing, which will cause tremendous harm.
I quote the figures contained in today's edition of The Scotsman, under the heading
Councils facing £35 million 'penalty' over rents.
The article mentions certain things happening in relation to expenditure, and it says:
If this happens, Glasgow seem set to have their December figure reduced by more than £10 million, Aberdeen by about £3·5 million and Dundee by more than £3 million. Other councils likely to suffer reductions are likely to include Stirling, Falkirk, Hamilton, Inverclyde, Monklands and Kyle and Carrick.
In addition to the rate increases which are being put into force by local authorities as a result of Government policy, the difficulties in the public housing sector which could come from the cancellation of housing grants could certainly put the housing structure in Scotland into a state of crisis from which it would have difficulty in escaping for many years, particularly if expenditure remains restricted and curtailed, as it has been.
If the Secretary of State has in mind stringent and swingeing cuts of that nature, he most certainly should reconsider them, because he will just be bringing misery and damage to tenants and ratepayers in Scotland and causing damage out of all context. The enormity of what he is doing will reverberate from year to year throughout Scottish housing. I certainly hope that the Secretary of State will think again about these matters.

Mr. Rifkind: The bulk of the contributions to the debate have related to new clause 1 and the power to reduce rates, but certain questions were asked of my right hon. Friend and myself about new clause 2 and the new controls over borrowing. Perhaps I might explain them by saying that if a local authority, faced with a loss of RSG,


does not use the alternative opportunity available to it of reducing its rates, my right hon. Friend will undoubtedly reduce its RSG.
The hon. Member for Berwick and East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) asked what will happen when it has lost its RSG. As a result of the law as it will then be, a local authority in Scotland, which has no power to levy a supplementary rate to get additional revenue, will also, unless it receives the consent of the Secretary of State, have no power to borrow to cover the loss that it has incurred by losing the RSG. It will therefore have no alternative but to reduce its spending by the equivalent amount.
The Government freely acknowledge that that will be the consequence of their decision, and it will not be the Government's decision except as approved by Parliament, because any attempt or desire by my right hon. Friend to reduce the RSG cannot come into effect until and unless a report has been presented to the House and approved by it.
Therefore, I make no apology for the fact that if the House agrees with my right hon. Friend that the proposed expenditure of an individual authority is excessive and unreasonable, it is right and proper that that authority should have to reduce its spending by an appropriate and equivalent amount.
The hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) asked how one would know whether a loan that the local authority had incurred had been for this purpose, because the loans fund is a general fund. He asked how it would be possible to identify whether the authority was in breach of what is in new clause 2. First, I have not the slightest doubt that all local authorities, and particularly local authority officials, will not consciously breach an Act of Parliament.
The matter is quite simple. If my right hon. Friend has to reduce the RSG of an authority, that authority will have to explain, if not to the Secretary of State, at least to its own elected members and its community, the consequences of that. If, having no reserves, and no power to levy a supplementary rate, the authority still intends to maintain the previous proposed level of spending, the only way in which that can be done is by a loan from the loans fund, because bills have to be met and cheques have to be signed and so forth. Therefore, if the authority intends to continue with the original proposed level of spending, there will be no way in which that can be done other than illegal borrowing. Thus the practical point to which the hon. Gentleman refers is not really a problem.

Mr. Dewar: To complete this cheerful picture of disaster, perhaps the Under-Secretary will talk us a little further through the process. If a local authority refuses to co-operate in the way that has been suggested, and borrows, what sanction will be imposed?

Mr. Rifkind: An authority that borrowed in those circumstances without the Secretary of State's consent would be in breach of the law and would be in exactly the same position as any local authority that breaches its statutory obligations. There are well-known procedures, which have applied for many years, for dealing with these situations, which, fortunately, occur very rarely. Opposition Members are well aware of them, because they have been used in a different context in recent years.

Mr. John Home Robertson: It would be helpful if the Minister would tell us a little more about how he proposes to work the scheme. If he forces a local authority to go into compulsory or voluntary liquidation—that is what it looks like—can he explain precisely how that will be administered? Does he have contingency plans whereby Scottish Office officals will move into a local town hall to sack people? How will he work it?

Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Gentleman is indulging in delightful irrelevant exaggeration, which bears little relation to what the House is considering. We are not talking about the total rate support grant of a local authority being withdrawn. We are concerned only with the proportion that has been judged by my right hon. Friend, and approved by the House, to be excessive and unreasonable. One would hope that in the vast majority of local authorities, certainly those affected by these provisions, that proportion of their expenditure that is excessive and unreasonable will, by definition, be expenditure which they are capable of reducing if they have the will to do so. I am sure that the House would not approve of any attempt to remove from an authority what is accepted to be vital and essential expenditure and could not be withdrawn or removed except by imposing intolerable and unacceptable damage on a local authority. That is a matter that will be judged at that time.

Mr. Martin J. O'Neill: Is the Minister telling us that he will surcharge councillors in the event of loans being obtained by means which he regards as unacceptable for expenditure which he considers to be unreasonable and excessive?

Mr. Rifkind: I am not saying anything of the sort. If a local authority breaks the law, either this law or any other—and local authorities have, over the years, occasionally been found to be in breach of the law—it will end up in court and a court order will be made for it to comply with the law. If an authority fails to do so, that will be a matter between it and the courts. There is no new provision in any part of the Bill that changes that. That is how the matter stands, and the House can consider it in that light. That is the essential effect of new clause 2.
My right hon. Friend makes no apology for the fact that if a local authority has proposals that involve excessive and unreasonable spending it is right and proper that once the House has approved the Secretary of State's judgment the authority should be required to reduce its spending by an equivalent amount. I am sure that the public and all reasonable people would expect that.
In support of that contention I quote the president of the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, COSLA, Councillor Fitzgerald, whose views were reported in. The Scotsman of 20 March:
He thought that any council who tried to borrow to meet the loss of grant would be engaging in a 'dubious' method of trying to raise finance. 'It would be very difficult for anyone to condone such action'.

Mr. Dewar: Does the Minister agree that Mr. Fitzgerald, who is a welt-known member of the Conservative Party, is opposed to the section 13 initiative, root and branch?

Mr. Rifkind: What is perhaps of particular significance is that, if the hon. Gentleman is correct, he will accept that Mr. Fitzgerald's remarks are important and


extremely persuasive. If someone who, according to the hon. Gentleman, does not approve of the general powers nevertheless comes to the same conclusion as the Government about the iniquity and impropriety of any attempt to borrow once the powers have been used, that is a persuasive argument that I am happy to endorse.
I come now to the basic points that have been raised and the unique and unprecedented power that will be given to local authorities in Scotland in certain circumstances to reduce their rates as an alternative to losing the rate support grant.
I shall comment first on the remarks of the hon. Members for Garscadden and for South Ayrshire (Mr. Foulkes), who seemed to be anxious to show that the proposals would be impracticable. They hoped that if the proposals could be shown to be impracticable they would not have to face what, from their point of view, would be the unfortunate choice about whether the proposals would at least be preferable to the loss of rate support grant for a local authority.
The hon. Member for South Ayrshire made great play of my comparison with the power that has existed for many years and has been used every year by one or two local authorities in England to levy a supplementary rate during the year. He is not correct to say that that is always done at the end of a financial year. Occasionally, it has been done in the summer or the autumn by individual local authorities.
My first point is that there is no obligation. The local authority will be able to decide whether it wishes to use the powers. It will have no obligation placed upon it. If it takes the view that the right or opportunity to refund money to the ratepayer is inappropriate or undesirable, it can explain that decision to the local community. It can explain why it prefers to give the money to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.
My second point is that if the regional council is the body responsible for collecting the rates and does so on behalf of the district council, there is provision within the new clause to ensure that it will be compensated by the district authority for any expenditure that it has incurred in that administration. That will not be a problem.
Neither the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire nor the hon. Member for Garscadden suggested why an English local authority, in the middle of a financial year, can, if it thinks appropriate, go through all the procedure of sending out a new rates demand, filling in the forms, making the consequential changes in rebate entitlement and calling in the rent cards, which has to be done if the rent payers are also ratepayers. Even if it does not have to do that for the rent cards because a single block sum is being demanded, many local authorities throughout the United Kingdom often make a second rent decision during the year. My hon. Friend the Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. Walker) pointed that out. It is a perfectly normal procedure to change the rent cards as a consequence.

Mr. Foulkes: The Minister is squirming and dodging the issue. He cannot get away from the fact that in England it is a single simple rate demand, which is the cheapest and simplest way of raising additional revenue, whereas in Scotland he is proposing a very complicated procedure. Will he deal with the points raised about monthly,

biannual and annual payments for those in council houses? Will he explain properly and honestly for once that he has made a far more complicated proposal?

Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Gentleman's bluster is normally used to conceal his lack of information. I shall deal with his specific point. He has said that when an English local authority wishes to levy a supplementary rate it demands a lump sum from every ratepayer. The hon. Gentleman has suggested that if the powers that we are proposing to reduce the rates were to be used in Scotland that would be complicated and impossible to work out.

Mr. Foulkes: I did not say that it would be impossible.

Mr. Rifkind: That is progress. We now have it acknowledged by the hon. Gentleman that it would be possible, if more difficult. That is something that the local authority will take into account when deciding whether to use the powers. The hon. Gentleman is making it sound far more complicated than it is. If a local authority decides to reduce its rates, any repayments due to a ratepayer will be pro rata to that ratepayer's original contribution. It will be substituting a new sum for the original total sum to be collected by the rates. The individual obligation of each domestic, commercial or industrial ratepayer towards meeting the required sum will be pro rata the original contribution. The method involved in all regions will not be complicated to work out. Computers are used for that purpose.
I accept that an administrative problem is involved. One does not deny that. It would be astonishing for me to say that it could be done by the press of a switch, but the administrative costs are but a tiny fraction of the sums involved. It is an entirely practical proposition.

Mr. Foulkes: The Minister is being increasingly helpful in his explanation. Will he give us an example of what will happen halfway through a financial year for ratepayers who pay monthly?

Mr. Rifkind: Ratepayers pay either monthly or in two instalments, one at the end of September and one at the end of the financial year. The hon. Gentleman will agree that in the latter case it is obvious how the system will work. Where monthly instalments are paid, it will be for the local authority to decide how it wishes to do it. If many monthly payments have been made, they will be reduced for the remainder of the year by £x. Alternatively, it could decide to dispense with monthly payments. It will be for the local authority to decide which system would be more convenient and economic. The hon. Gentleman has conceded that the proposals are feasible, and it will be for local authorities to decide whether they wish to use them.
6.30 pm
I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Garscadden, because he acknowledged at the end of his circumlocutory remarks that, despite all his reservations, equivocations, doubts and concerns, he would not vote against the new clause. The hon. Member for Berwick and East Lothian was correct in saying that voting against the new clause would be like voting against good weather. I have no doubt that the Opposition will agree that the new clause is one of the best things to happen to ratepayers in Scotland for many years. The Opposition's voting intentions are an indication of that.
In reply to the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Strang), I should say that there is no question of the


Secretary of State dictating to an individual authority what it should spend on a particular item. If it wishes to spend more in one area, while ensuring that its aggregate spending is maintained at a reasonable level by making economies elsewhere, that will be a reasonable decision for it to take, if that is what it believes local priorities deserve. Nothing that the Government intend to do will interfere with that discretion.
The hon. Member for Edinburgh, East appealed to my right hon. Friend to treat authorities affected by the proposal leniently and objectively. Of course we shall do that. The hon. Gentleman sounded at one point as though he were making a plea of mitigation rather than a defence of any individual authority, but I may have misunderstood his remarks.

Mr. Strang: I do not think that a reading of my speech would justify that observation. I made it clear that the real issue is that Lothian regional council will be required by the Government to cut services and that if those cuts are made it will be clear to the vast majority of the ratepayers that the decision was erroneous.

Mr. Rifkind: That is a matter that we could debate for a long time. I pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman for stating firmly in answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Ancram) that if an authority had to choose between giving rate support grant back to the Government and giving an equivalent amount back to local ratepayers, he had no doubt that giving money to the ratepayers would be a far more sensible decision. I am sure that hon. Members on both sides of the House agree with that.
I thank the Opposition for, if not enthusiastically endorsing new clause 1, at least indicating that they do not intend to vote against it. The other provisions that we are considering are a logical and necessary part of the package and will ensure that excessive and unreasonable spending does not take place.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

Orders of the Day — New clause 2

Prohibition of Using Sums from Loans Fund to Offset Reduction of Rate Support Grant or Diminution in Amount of Resources Element

`—(1)Where under section 5(1) of the 1966 Act the Secreatry of State reduces an element of rate support grant payable to a local authority, or where the authority anticipates such a reduction thereunder, the authority shall neither wholly nor partially offset the reduction (or anticipated reduction) with sums advanced from their loans fund:

Provided that such offsetting may nevertheless be permitted by the Secretary of State in any case on such terms and conditions as he considers appropriate.

(2) Where by virtue of paragraph 2(a) of Part II of Schedule 1 to the 1966 Act the amount of the resources element payable to a local authority is less, or where the authority anticipates that it will thereby be less, than the product of the regional, general or district rate (as the case may be) and the difference between the rate products mentioned in paragraphs 1 of that Part, the authority shall neither wholly nor partially offset such effect (or anticipated effect) of the operation of the said paragraph 2(a) with sums advanced from their loans fund; but the proviso to subsection (1) above shall apply for the purposes of this subsection as that proviso applies for the purposes of that subsection.

(3) If the Secretary of State is of the opinion that subsection (1) or (2) above, or any term or condition imposed under the

proviso thereto, has been contravened the local authority shall, on such opinion being intimated to them, reimburse their loans fund forthwith or within such time as the Secretary of State may allow.

(4) If an amount was, on or after 23rd March 1981 but before the coming into force of this section, advanced from the loans fund of a local authority and the Secretary of State is of the opinion that the advance was for a purpose such that there would have been a contravention of subsection (1) or (2) above had those subsections and sections 13, 14 and 15 of this Act been in force, the local authority shall, on such opinion being intimated to them, reimburse their loans fund forthwith or within such time as the Secretary of State may allow.

(5) In the foregoing provisions of this section, "loans fund" means the loan fund established under Schedule 3 to the 1975 Act.'.— [Mr. Younger.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Motion made, and Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 180, Noes 139.

Div. No 111]
[6.33 pm


AYES


Alexander, Richard
Greenway, Harry


Ancram, Michael
Griffiths, Peter Portsm 'th N)


Atkins, Robert (PrestonN)
Grist, Ian


Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)
Grylls, Michael


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Gummer, JohnSelwyn


Bendall, Vivian
Hamilton, Michael(Salisbury)


Benyon, Thomas (A 'don)
Hannam, John


Berry, Hon Anthon y
Haselhurst, Alan


Best, Keith
Hawkins, Paul


Bevan, DavidGilroy
Hawksley, Warren


Biggs-Davison, John
Hayhoe, Barney


Blackburn, John
Henderson, Barry


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.


Boscawen, Hon Robert 
Hill, James


Braine, Sir Bernard
Hordern, Peter


Bright, Graham
Howell, Ralph (NNorfolk)


Brinton, Tim
Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)


Brotherton, Michael
Hurd, Hon Douglas


Brown, Michael (Brigg&amp;Sc'n)
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Buchanan-Smith, Alick
Kaberry, Sir Donald


Buck, Antony
Kershaw, Anthony


Budgen, Nick
King, Rt Hon Tom


Burden, Sir Frederick
Knight, MrsJill


Cadbury, Jocelyn
Knox, David


Carlisle, John (Luton West)
Lang, Ian


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Lawrence, Ivan


Chalker, Mrs. Lynda
Lee, John


Chapman, Sydney
LeMarchant, Spencer


Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th, S'n)
Lester Jim (Beeston)


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)


Clark, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Cockeram, Eric
Loveridge, John


Colvin, Michael
Lyell, Nicholas


Cope, John
MacGregor, John


Corrie, John
MacKay, John(Argyll)


Costain, Sir Albert 
McNair-Wilson, M(N'bury)


Cranborne, Viscount
McNair-Wilson, P. (NewF'st)


Crouch, David
McQuarrie, Albert 


Dickens, Geoffrey
Madel, David


Douglas-Hamilton, LordJ.
Major, John


Dover, Denshore
Marlow, Tony


Dunn, Robert (Dartford)
Mart en, Neil(Banbury)


Dykes, Hugh
Maude, Rt Hon Sir Angus


Fairgrieve, Russell
Mawby, Ray


Faith, MrsSheila
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Fenner, Mrs Peggy
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Fletcher, A. (Ed'nb'ghN)
Meyer, Sir Anthon y


Fletcher-Cooke, Sir Charles
Miller, Hal(B'grove)


Fookes, Miss Janet
Mills, Iain(Meriden)


Fowler, Rt Hon Norman
Mills, Peter (West Devon)


Fraser, Peter (South Angus)
Moate, Roger


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Monro, Hector


Goodlad, Alastair
Montgomery, Fergus


Gorst, John
Morgan, Geraint


Gow, Ian
Mudd, David


Gray, Hamish
Myles, David






Needham, Richard
Sproat, Iain


Nelson, Anthony
Squire, Robin


Neubert, Michael
Stainton, Keith


Newton, Tony
Stanbrook, Ivor


Normanton, Tom
Steen, Anthony


Page, Rt Hon Sir G. (Crosby)
Stevens, Martin


Page, Richard (SWHert s)
Stewart, A. (ERenfrewshire)


Parris, Matthew
Stradling Thomas, J.


Patten, Christopher(Bath)
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Pattie, Geoffrey
Temple-Morris, Peter


Percival, Sir Ian
Thomas, Rt Hon Peter


Pollock, Alexander
Thompson, Donald


Prentice, Rt Hon Reg
Thorne, Neil (IlfordSouth)


Prior, Rt Hon James
Thornton, Malcolm


Proctor, K. Harvey
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Pym, Rt Hon Francis
Townsend, CyrilD, (B'heath)


Raison, Timothy
Trippier, David


Rathbone, Tim
Viggers, Peter


Rees-Davies, W. R.
Waddington, David


Renton, Tim
Wakeham, John


Rhodes James, Robert 
Walker, B. (Perth)


RhysWilliams, Sir Brandon
Waller, Gary


Ridley, Hon Nicholas
Ward, John


Rifkind, Malcolm
Warren, Kenneth


Robert s, M. (Cardiff NW)
Watson, John


Rossi, Hugh
Wells, John(Maidstone)


Rost, Peter
Wells, Bowen


Royle, Sir Anthony
Wheeler, John


Sainsbury, Hon Timothy
Wickenden, Keith


Scott, Nicholas
Wolfson, Mark


Shepherd, Colin(Hereford)
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Skeet, T. H. H.
Younger, Rt Hon George


Speller, Tony



Spence, John
Tellers for the Ayes:


Spicer, Jim (WestDorset)
Mr. Carol Mather and


Spicer, Michael (SWorcs)
Mr. Peter Brooke.




NOES


Adams, Allen
Eastham, Ken


Alton, David
Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Evans, John (Newton)


Ashton, Joe
Field, Frank


Atkinson, N.(H'gey,)
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)


Bagier, GordonA, T.
Foot, Rt Hon Michael


Booth, Rt Hon Albert 
Ford, Ben


Boothroyd, MissBetty
Foster, Derek


Bradley, Tom
Foulkes, George


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Freud, Clement


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Grant, George(Morpeth)


Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)
Grant, John (Islington C)


Callaghan, Jim (Midd't'n &amp; P)
Grimond, Rt Hon J.


Campbell, Ian
Hamilton, W. W. (C'tral Fife)


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Hardy, Peter


Canavan, Dennis
Harrison, Rt Hon Walter


Carmichael, Neil
Haynes, Frank


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Hogg, N. (EDunb't'nshire)


Cocks, Rt Hon M. (B'stol S)
HomeRobertson, John


Coleman, Donald
Hooley, Frank


Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.
Howell, Rt Hon D.


Cook, Robin F.
Huckfield, Les


Cowans, Harry
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Cox, T. (W'dsw'th, Toot'g)
Janner, Hon Greville


Craigen, J. M.
Jay, Rt Hon Douglas


Crawshaw, Richard
John, Brynmor


Cryer, Bob
Johnston, Russell(Inverness)


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Jones, Barry (East Flint)


Cunningham, G. (Islington S)
Lambie, David


Dalyell, Tam
Lamond, James


Davis, T. (B' ham, Stechf' d)
Leadbitter, Ted


Deakins, Eric
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)


Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
Litherland, Robert 


Dempsey, James
Lofthouse, Geoffrey


Dewar, Donald
Lyons, Edward (Bradf' dW)


Dixon, Donald
Mabon, Rt Hon Dr J. Dickson


Dobson, Frank
McCartney, Hugh


Dormand, Jack
McDonald, Dr Oonagh


Douglas, Dick
McGuire, Michael (Ince)


Dubs, Alfred
McKay, Allen (Penistone)


Duffy, A. E. P.
McKelvey, William


Eadie, Alex
MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor





Maclennan, Robert 
Skinner, Dennis


McNamara, Kevin
Snape, Peter


McTaggart, Robert 
Soley, Clive


McWilliam, John
Spearing, Nigel


Marshall, D (G 'gowS 'ton)
Stallard, AW.


Mason, Rt Hon Roy
Stoddart, David


Maxton, John
Stott, Roger


Maynard, Miss Joan
Strang, Gavin


Millan, Rt Hon Bruce
Thomas, Dafydd(Merioneth)


Mitchell, R, C. (Soton Itchen)
Thorne, Stan (Preston South)


Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)
Tinn, James


Morris, Rt Hon C. (O'shaw)
Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.


Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Wainwright, E. (DearneV)


O'Neill, Martin
Wainwright, R. (ColneV)


Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Weetch, Ken


Palmer, Arthur
Welsh, Michael


Pavitt, Laurie
White, Frank R.


Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)
White, J. (G' gow Pollok)


Prescott, John
Whitehead, Phillip


Richardson, Jo
Wigley, Dafydd


Robert s, Albert (Normanton)
Williams, Rt Hon A. (S'sea W)


Robert s, Ernest (Hackney N)
Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)


Roper, John
Wilson, William (C'try SE)


Ross, Ernest (Dundee West)
Winnick, David


Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)
Woolmer, Kenneth


Rowlands, Ted



Sever, John
Tellers for the Noes:


Short, Mrs Renée
Mr. James Hamilton and


Silkin, Rt Hon J. (Deptford)
Mr. George Mort on.


Silverman, Julius

Question accordingly agreed to.

Clause added to the Bill.

Orders of the Day — New Clause 3

CONSENT TO CERTAIN LOCAL AUTHORITY BORROWING

`—For sub-paragraph (2) of paragraph 1 of Schedule 3 to the 1975 Act (which empowers a local authority to borrow sums required to meet certain expenses where the local authority are satisfied that the expenses should be so met and repayment spread over a term of years) there shall be substituted the following sub-paragraph—
(2) With the consent of the Secretary of State, a local authority may borrow, on such terms and conditions as to repayment as the Secretary of State may in so consenting allow, such sums as are required to meet expenses, other than expenses to which sub-paragraph (1) above relates, which the authority have power to incur in the exercise of any of their functions (excluding functions relating to a public utility undertaking); but the Secretary of State shall give such consent only if satisfied that the expenses are of such a nature that they should be met by such borrowing.".'.—[Mr. Rifkind.]

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

Orders of the Day — New Clause 4

VESTING IN LANDLORD TO BRING INTO BEING TENANT'S RIGHT TO PURCHASE DWELLING-HOUSE

`In the Tenants' Rights, Etc. (Scotland) Act 1980, after section 1 there shall be inserted the following section—

1A.—(1) Subject to subsection (2) below where, but for the fact that a landlord is not the heritable proprietor of land on which dwelling-houses have been let (or made available for letting) by it, one or more of its tenants would have a right to purchase under section 1 of this Act, the Secretary of State may by order made by statutory instrument provide that the whole of the heritable proprietor's interest in the land shall vest in the landlord.

(2) An order under this section shall only be made where—

(a) the heritable proprietor is a body mentioned in any of paragraphs (a), (b), (c) and (f) of section 10(2) of this Act; and


(b) the Secretary of State is of the opinion, after consultation with the heritable proprietor and with the landlord that the order is necessary if the right to purchase is to come into being.

(3) An order under this section shall have the same effect as a declaration under section 278 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1972 (general vesting declarations) except that, in relation to such an order, the enactments mentioned in Schedule Al to this Act shall have effect subject to the modifications specified in that Schedule.

(4) Compensation under the Land Compensation (Scotland) Act 1963, as applied by subsection (3) above and Schedule A1 to this Act, shall be assessed by reference to values current on the date the order under this section comes into force.

(5) An order under this section shall have no effect until approved by resolution of each House of Parliament.

(6) An order under this section which would, apart from the provisions of this subsection, be treated for the purposes of the Standing Orders of either House of Parliament as a hybrid instrument shall proceed in that House as if it were not such an instrument.

(7) An order under this section may include such incidental, consequential or supplementary provisions as may appear to the Secretary of State to be necessary or expedient for the purposes of this Act.".'.—[Mr. Rifkind.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Rifkind: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The new clause ensures that a tenant is not deprived of the right to buy under the Tenants' Rights, Etc. (Scotland) Act because, although he is the tenant of an authority to whom the Act applies, his landlord leases the house or the land on which the house has been built from another authority to whom the Act applies. This is clearly consistent with the general policy of the right to buy. The existing provision in section 1(11) of the Act which removes the right to buy in cases where the landlord does not own the house is perfectly reasonable in most cases but not where the owner of the house is another public body whose own tenants have the right to buy under the Act.
The situation envisaged by the new clause has come to light in relation to houses built by the Scottish Special Housing Association on land leased from the district councils in Glasgow and Dundee. The number of tenants involved is 8,904 in Glasgow and 120 in Dundee. The SSHA has attempted to buy the land in question from Glasgow and Dundee in order to allow its tenants the right to buy but both district councils have refused to sell. Furthermore, there are indications that the present situation has led Glasgow to seek to deny future SSHA tenants the right to buy by insisting on leasing land for future building to the SSHA rather than selling it to the association, as had originally been envisaged.

Mr. Robert Hughes: Why is the new clause necessary? I thought the Minister had told hon. Members that the case put by Dundee and Glasgow would not stand up in court? Why are we having this legislation?

Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Gentleman is confused. He is talking about the original definition of a heritable proprietor and whether a local authority, as a result of the reorganisation of local government, was a heritable proprietor for the purposes of the original Act. That matter is now history. It is not affected by this provision. We are dealing with a situation where the SSHA owns houses and rents them to tenants who have the right to buy from the SSHA but where, by a historical accident, the land on

which the SSHA has built houses is leased from the two local authorities I have mentioned. We are in the anomalous position that, although both the SSHA and the local authorities are authorities whose tenants have the right to buy, the fact that the houses belong to one authority but are leased from the other means that they are not covered in the original legislation.
The mechanism provided by the new provision is that the Secretary of State would consult both the bodies concerned to establish the facts and to see whether the problem could be resolved without his intervention. If the authorities were unable to reach an agreed solution, the Secretary of State would make a vesting order transferring the interest in the land covered by the lease from the owner to the lessee. Any order which the Secretary of State proposed to make would be subject to stringent safeguards in the form of approval by both Houses of Parliament.
The vesting order procedure is the same as that already provided for in the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1972. The authority which owned the land would be compensated for the transfer of ownership under the terms of the Land Compensation (Scotland) Act 1963. The schedule associated with the new clause is purely consequential and simply inserts references to the new clause in existing legislation dealing with vesting orders and compensation.
I am sure the House will agree that it is right and proper that all tenants of the Scottish Special Housing Association should have the rights that Parliament intended. I hope, on that basis, that the House will approve the new clause.

Mr. O'Neill: We come once again to the Tenants' Rights, Etc. (Scotland) Act. The ink is barely dry on the Act, yet we had a series of amendments to it last year, and the Minister has discovered yet another anomaly. One must question the Department's competence in drafting the legislation and the speed with which it pushed it through last year, as it was unable to anticipate that 8,900 houses could not be sold.
We have no desire to assist the Minister in getting the clause through. We believe that the Act, which we opposed at every turn, was wrongheaded. When the leases in question were drawn up by Glasgow and Dundee, the work was done with a foresight for which those authorities now deserve credit. It is reasonable that the leases should have been drawn up in such a way that the authorities retained some control over the land.
Once again the Minister is trying to tidy up the mess that he left last year, when he pushed the Act through. The Opposition will give him no comfort. We want an end to the sale of council houses, which is irrelevant to the needs of tenants and would-be tenants. The economic position is such that far fewer people have the confidence to buy houses of any kind, as we see from the collapse in the private sector. The clause will do nothing to help those who are looking for houses to rent, and it does not assist Glasgow and Dundee district councils, which are taking what steps they can to satisfy the needs of the homeless in their cities.
We oppose the clause. We wonder how many more times the Under-Secretary will have to request further amendments, and how many other local authorities will have similar difficulties. So far only Dundee and Glasgow have encountered those difficulties, but many other authorities could find themselves in a similar position.

Mr. Henderson: Is it not true that it is not the local authorities that find themselves in difficulty? There is no problem for them. The problem is created for tenants who are denied the right to buy as a result of local authorities' unreasonably withholding a transfer of land.

Mr. O'Neill: Our point is that when the leases were drawn up the local authorities took account of the fact that they might wish to retain possession of the land. That right is now to be denied them by the new clause, simply because the Minister wishes to make sure that the houses in question can be sold. We remain opposed to the sale of council houses, and do not wish the clause to be part of the Bill. It will not help those who look to Labour councils for assistance when they seek cheap rented housing because they can afford no other accommodation.

Mr. Hugh D. Brown: This is an important clause, and it would be a pity if it were dealt with more less on the nod. We shall vote against it.
The present Government, and the Scottish Office in particular, must have put through more legislation requiring the use of orders during their short period in office than any other Government that I can recall. Here we have a requirement for a resolution approved by both Houses of Parliament, and it can be a hybrid instrument. I do not pretend to understand the constitutional significance of that, but I believe that it is an unusual procedure that the Government propose.
Are the Government now taking power to tell local authorities—in this case Glasgow and Dundee—"Whether you like it or not, you must sell that land to the Scottish Special Housing Association"? Will the Secretary of State bring a compensation procedure into play? If that is what the Minister is saying the powers are for, it is most unfortunate, because he has given no evidence of need. I am not aware of 8,000 angry SSHA tenants in Glasgow demanding the right to buy.
I do not expect Glasgow or Dundee district council to go around shouting about the matter. They have discovered a loophole. My hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) pointed out that in Committee we were assured that there was no loophole. Is it true that masses of SSHA tenants are clamouring for the right to buy? Where has the Secretary of State received representations from?
The matter is most disturbing. The Minister knows my views. I have often said that no authority is entitled to break the law. The Government have got themselves into a mess without having thought the matter out. We raised the problem at the time, but they assured us that there was no flaw in the law.

Mr. Rifkind: It is precisely because the two local authorities in question have refused to act sensibly in this relatively minor matter that it is necessary to introduce the provisions before the House. There is considerable interest amoung SSHA tenants in Glasgow in buying their own homes, even though the SSHA has had to tell them that nothing can be done unless the law is changed. I understand that 352 have already applied to the association, and I have not the slightest doubt that, when it is known that any SSHA tenant will now be able to exercise his right to buy, that not insignificant number will be substantially greater.
The provisions are being put to the House only after 18 months of seeking to persuade Glasgow district council to

agree to allow individual tenants of the SSHA to buy their homes. The first approaches were made in July 1979. There followed eight months' consideration by Glasgow, during which time no answer was given to the SSHA. The first response, in March 1980, was that no decision had been reached. In July 1980 the district council took the first steps towards discussing the matter with the SSHA. Eventually, in January this year, officials of the district council informed the association that Glasgow had decided not to sell. Therefore, it is far from true that the matter was rushed through or was not even being considered when the Act was passed.

Mr. James Dempsey: Has the tenant no right of appeal against a local authority's decision to withhold the sale of land? I had understood that in certain circumstances there was a right of appeal. I should be grateful if the Minister would clarify the position.

Mr. Rifkind: I am happy to do so, because it makes clear the absurd position that the two district councils have put themselves in.
A local authority tenant has a right to buy and can appeal to the Lands Tribunal if that right is frustrated. An SSHA tenant has an identical right. The problem here is that, despite the fact that the owner of the land is an authority to which the Act applies, as is the landlord, because both have not agreed to the sale there is no procedure at present allowing that obscure problem to be solved. As far as we are aware, it applies only to Glasgow and Dundee, in respect of SSHA houses.
The hon. Member for Glasgow, Provan (Mr. Brown) suggested that a wide power was being taken. If he reads the clause he will see that this vesting power can apply only where both the owner of the land and the landlord are authorities to which the Act applies. If either is not, there is no way in which the new power will be available to the Secretary of State. That is right and proper because, after Parliament gave SSHA and local authority tenants the right to buy their homes, it would be nonsense if about 8,000 tenants in Glasgow and 100-odd in Dundee were deprived of that right because of a technicality of the kind that I have described. We hope even now that it will be unnecessary to use these powers. If a local authority is willing to allow the SSHA to sell a house to a tenant who wishes to buy, there will be no need for these provisions to be implemented.

7 pm

Mr. Hugh D. Brown: I accept that we have lost the argument about the right to buy, although I do not accept the principles that guide the Government. I do not understand why only two authorities in Scotland have discovered the loophole. It is no secret that there is not a Labour authority in Scotland that wants to sell. Why are other authorities not being obstructed? Is there a financial reason or does it come down to ideology?

Mr. Rifkind: Glasgow and Dundee district councils are the only two authorities that happened to decide to retain the ownership of the land instead of selling it or giving it to the SSHA. Therefore, they are still technically the owners of the land. In other areas where the SSHA has houses it is the owner not only of the property but of the land on which the property is situated. Therefore, the local authority does not come into the picture in respect of an individual sale.

Mr. Hugh D. Brown: Should some tribute be paid to Glasgow and Dundee for adopting such a polsicy? It was not designed at the time to conflict with the Tenants' Rights, Etc. (Scotland) Act.

Mr. Rifkind: It is a pure accident of history that the two authorities have retained ownership of the land. In respect of certain houses in Aberdeen a right of preemption was written into the deeds. However, that is not effective and it does not prevent the right to buy from being exercised. No doubt there are other conditions of various sorts in other local authority areas.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 179, Noes 115.

Division No. 112]
7.01 pm


AYES


Alexander, Richard
Hawksley, Warren


Ancram, Michael
Hayhoe, Barney


Atkins, Robert(Preston N)
Henderson, Barry


Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Hill, James


Bendall, Vivian
Hordern, Peter


Berry, Hon Anthony
Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk)


Best, Keith
Hunt John(Ravensbourne)


Bevan, David Gilroy
Hurd, Hon Douglas


Biggs-Davison, John
Johnston, Russell(Inverness)


Blackburn, John
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Kaberry, Sir Donald


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Kershaw, Anthony


Braine, Sir Bernard
King, Rt Hon Tom


Bright, Graham
Knight, Mrs Jill


Brinton, Tim
Knox, David


Brooke, Hon Peter
Lang, Ian


Brotherton, Michael
Lawrence, Ivan


Budgen, Nick
LeMarchant, Spencer


Burden, Sir Frederick
Lester Jim (Beeston)


Cadbury, Jocelyn
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Carlisle, John (Luton West)
Lyell, Nicholas


Chalker, Mrs. Lynda
Macfarlane, Neil


Chapman, Sydney
MacGregor, John


Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th, S'n)
MacKay, John (Argyll)


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Maclennan, Robert


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
McNair-Wilson, M.(N'bury)


Cockeram, Eric
McQuarrie, Albert


Colvin, Michael
Madel, David


Corrie, John
Major, John


Cranborne, Viscount
Marlow, Tony


Crawshaw, Richard
Marten, Neil(Banbury)


Crouch, David
Mather, Carol


Dickens, Geoffrey
Maude, Rt Hon Sir Angus


Dover, Denshore
Mawby, Ray


Dunn, Robert(Dartford)
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Dykes, Hugh
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Fairgrieve, Russell
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Faith, Mrs Sheila
Miller, Hal(B'grove)


Fenner, Mrs Peggy
Mills, Iain(Meriden)


Fletcher, A.(Ed'nb'gh N)
Mills, Peter (West Devon)


Fletcher-Cooke, Sir Charles
Moate, Roger


Fookes, Miss Janet
Monro, Hector


Fowler, Rt Hon Norman
Morgan, Geraint


Fraser, Peter (South Angus)
Mudd, David


Freud, Clement
Murphy, Christopher


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Myles, David


Goodhart, Philip
Neale, Gerrard


Goodlad, Alastair
Needham, Richard


Gorst, John
Nelson, Anthony


Gow, Ian
Neubert, Michael


Greenway, Harry
Newton, Tony


Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)
Normanton, Tom


Grimond, Rt Hon J.
Page, Rt Hon Sir G. (Crosby)


Grist, Ian
Page, Richard (SW Herts)


Grylls, Michael
Parris, Matthew


Gummer, John Selwyn
Pattie, Geoffrey


Hamilton, Michael(Salisbury)
Percival, Sir Ian


Hannam, John
Pollock, Alexander


Haselhurst, Alan
Prentice, Rt Hon Reg


Hawkins, Paul
Proctor, K. Harvey





Raison, Timothy
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Rathbone, Tim
Temple-Morris, Peter


Renton. Tim
Thomas, Rt Hon Peter


Rhodes James, Robert
Thompson, Donald


Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Thornton, Malcolm


Ridley, Hon Nicholas
Townend, John(Bridlington)


Rifkind, Malcolm
Townsend, Cyril D, (B'heath)


Roberts, M. (Cardiff NW)
Trippier, David


Roper, John
Viggers, Peter


Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)
Waddington, David


Rossi, Hugh
Wainwright, R. (Colne V)


Rost, Peter
Wakeham, John


Royle, Sir Anthony
Walker, B.(Perth)


Sainsbury, Hon Timothy
Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir D.


Scott, Nicholas
Waller, Gary


Shepherd, Colin(Hereford)
Ward, John


Skeet, T. H. H.
Watson, John


Speller, Tony
Wells, John(Maidstone)


Spence, John
Wells, Bowen


Spicer, Jim (West Dorset)
Wheeler, John


Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)
Wickenden, Keith


Sproat. Iain
Williams, D.(Montgomery)


Squire, Robin
Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)


Stainton, Keith
Wolfson, Mark


Stanbrook, Ivor
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Steel, Rt Hon David
Younger, Rt Hon George


Steen, Anthony



Stevens, Martin
Tellers for the Ayes:


Stewart, Rt Hon D. (W Isles)
Lord James Douglas-Hamilton


Stewart, A. (E Renfrewshire)
Mr. John Cope.


Stradling Thomas, J.





NOES


Adams, Allen
Haynes, Frank


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Hogg, N. (E Dunb't'nshire)


Ashton, Joe
Home Robertson, John


Atkinson, N.(H'gey,)
Hooley, Frank


Booth, Rt Hon Albert
Howell, Rt Hon D.


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Janner, Hon Greville


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Jay, Rt Hon Douglas


Callaghan, Jim(Midd't'n &amp; P)
John, Brynmor


Campbell, Ian
Jones, Barry (East Flint)


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Lambie, David


Canavan, Dennis
Lamond, James


Carmichael, Neil
Leadbitter, Ted


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Lewis, Hon(Carlisle)


Cocks, Rt Hon M. (B'stol S)
Litherland, Robert


Coleman, Donald
Lofthouse, Geoffrey


Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.
Mabon, Rt Hon Dr J. Dickson


Cook, Robin F.
McCartney, Hugh


Cowans, Harry
McDonald, Dr Oonagh


Cox, T.(W'dsw'th, Toot'g)
McGuire, Michael(Ince)


Craigen, J. M.
McKay, Allen (Penistone)


Cryer, Bob
McKelvey, William


Cunliffe, Lawrence
MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor


Dalyell, Tam
McNamara, Kevin


Davis, T. (B'ham, Stechf'd)
McTaggart, Robert


Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
McWilliam, John


Dempsey, James
Marshall, D(G'gowS'ton)


Dewar, Donald
Mason, Rt Hon Roy


Dixon, Donald
Maxton, John


Dobson, Frank
Maynard, Miss Joan


Dormand, Jack
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce


Douglas, Dick
Mitchell, R.C. (Soton Itchen)


Dubs, Alfred
Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)


Duffy, A. E. P.
Morris, Rt Hon C. (O'shaw)


Eadie, Alex
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Eastham, Ken
O'Neill, Martin


Edwards, R. (W'hampt'n S E)
Palmer, Arthur


Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)
Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)


Fletcher, Ted(Darlington)
Prescott, John


Ford, Ben
Roberts, Albert(Normanton)


Foster, Derek
Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)


Foulkes, George
Roper, John


Grant, George(Morpeth)
Ross, Ernest (Dundee West)


Grant, John (Islington C)
Rowlands, Ted


Hamilton, W. W. (C'tral Fife)
Sever, John


Hardy, Peter
Short, Mrs Renée


Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Silkin, Rt Hon J. (Deptford)






Silverman, Julius
White, Frank R.


Skinner, Dennis
White, J. (G'gow Pollok)


Snape, Peter
Whitehead, Phillip


Spearing, Nigel
Wigley, Dafydd


Stallard, A.W.
Williams, Rt Hon A.(S'sea W)


Stoddart, David
Wilson, William (C'try SE)


Stott, Roger
Winnick, David


Strang, Gavin
Woolmer, Kenneth


Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)



Tinn, James
Tellers for the Noes:


Wainwright, E.(Dearne V)
Mr. George Morton and


Weetch, Ken
Mr. James Hamilton.


Welsh, Michael

Question accordingly agreed to.

Clause added to the Bill.

Orders of the Day — New Clause 5

VALUATION OF UNDERGROUND RAILWAYS

'In Schedule 1 to the 1975 Act (which specifies lands and heritages as regards which there may be valuation by formula)—
(a) after paragraph 2 there shall be inserted the following paragraph—
2A.—(1) Any lands and heritages occupied by a Passenger Transport Executive for any purpose concerned with, or supplementary or incidental to, the carriage of passengers by underground railway; but such lands and heritages do not include office premises not situated on operational land of the Executive.
(2) In subparagraph (1) above—
'office premises' has the same meaning as in paragraph 2(1) of this Schedule; 'operational land' has the same meaning in relation to the Executive as it has in the said paragraph 2(1) in relation to any of the bodies specified in subparagraph (1)(a), (b) or (c) of that paragraph; and 'railway' includes a tramway undertaking."; and
(b) in paragraph 4A, after the words "or (c)," there shall be inserted the words "2A(1),".'.—[Mr. Rifkind.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Rifkind: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine): With this we may take new clause 11—Minibus undertaking by islands council—and Government amendment No. 41.

Mr. Rifkind: New clause 5 will enable the Secretary of State to make formula valuation orders for underground railways used to convey passengers. At present the only underground passenger railway in Scotland is that operated by the Strathclyde passenger transport executive in Glasgow.
The clause proceeds by adding lands and heritages occupied by a transport executive in connection with conveying passengers by underground railway to the list of subjects in schedule 1 to the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1975 which may already be valued by formula.
The Strathclyde assessor and the local authorities have already told the Government that they are content for us to proceed in this way; my right hon. Friend would intend, subject to the enactment of this provision, to consult interested parties on the terms of the formula, and to make the necessary order in time for the next rating revaluation. This consultation, which the Secretary of State is statutorily obliged to undertake, will enable all points of view to be reflected in the order that is finally laid before

Parliament for approval. Given the agreement in principle that we have at this stage between the various parties, I do not think that the consultation is likely to be contentious. I commend the new clause to the House.

Mr. Dewer: We do not intend to obstruct the clause. There are a number of contentious matters that we want to debate at some length. Therefore, it would be a shame to delay the House now.
The Under-Secretary said that he hoped that the consultations would be over in time for the next revaluation. That is a somewhat cryptic remark in view of clauses 1 and 2 and the announcement of the 1983 revaluation, which we are anxiously awaiting. We hope that there will be some hints about that later.
If we have assurances from the hon. Member, which I shall be pleased to accept, that the matter has been fully discussed in principle, that none of the local authorities that may be involved in the assessors' department has any objection and that there will be further full consultation before the mechanics are settled, we shall be happy to approve the new clause.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

Orders of the Day — New Clause 6

SEX SHOPS

'(1) From and after the passing of this Act, any person who operates or who seeks to operate premises as a sex shop or a shop dealing in sex magazines or sex aids will be required to obtain planning permission from the local planning authority for use of the premises for that purpose.

(2) In considering an application for planning permission for such use the local planning authority shall have regard to the interests of amenity and to the proximity of the premises to schools, churches and other shops.

(3) If the local planning authority allows the application, it shall have the power to grant the permission subject to such conditions as to access, display and external advertising as it may deem appropriate.'.—[Mr. Gordon Wilson.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Gordon Wilson: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The new clause is in the names of the hon. Members for South Angus (Mr. Fraser), Dundee, West (Mr. Ross) and myself. Significantly those names are drawn from constituencies in Dundee or in close proximity to Dundee, where the establishment of a sex shop has aroused controversy. The object of the new clause it to try to introduce some local control against the spread of this new manifestation.
I point out to the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Foulkes) and others who might be interested in the easy access to such places that that problem does not solely exist in Dundee. In Glasgow, a sex shop has recently been subject to a police raid. One is to be set up in Leith, and Aberdeen must not be excluded, as Scotland's boom town. It, too, is to have a sex shop. In most of those communities, there has been considerable opposition to the establishment locally of a sex shop, together with doubts about the lack of control which local authorities may have over those manifestations. Anyone who has seen Soho knows that if one has that sort of business in large numbers or with ostentatious advertising, an abuse may develop. Significantly, there is an early-day motion on the


Order Paper signed by about 66 Members, because in England too, there is considerable opposition to that new sort of business.
Sex shops are one sort of import which Scotland does not need. I am not sure what I dislike most about them. It could be the invasion and cheapening of human sexuality. That is one aspect to which one could take exception. One could also take strong exceptions to the rip off and profiteering associated with those businesses, because the goods on sale are apparently sold at high prices. The shops are taking advantage of human nature.
I hope that the House will agree that there is now no method in our planning law by which a local authority can exercise any sort of planning control. If a building not so far used as a shop is to be converted into a sex shop, an application for change of use is required. On the other hand, if premises had received planning permission for use as a shop and someone later intended to set up a sex shop there, it would not be necessary for an application to be made to the local authority for a change of use. In other words, the use which had been given for the premises for the purpose of a shop would apply to the specific use of such premises for a sex shop. Therefore, there is a gap in the planning law.
It is objectionable that even if there were to be no opposition in principle to such establishments, there can be no control at local level over the location, the placing of the enterprise and its advertising. In Dundee, for example, some parts of the community feared that the sex shop in Strathmartine Road was very close to schools and churches. I received a letter from St. John's school council, which said:
The School Council is extremely concerned about the opening of a sex shop within the school catchment areas of St. John's St. Peter and Paul and Rockwell Primary and High Schools. Objections on behalf of parents and teachers have been submitted to the Lord Provost who has confirmed that the District Council is doing everything in its power to stop this development.
The council has asked me to try to introduce legislation to give local authorities the power to decide the type of commercial ventures that should be allowed to operate within their boundaries.
Recently, there has been a series of prosecutions of newsagents who stock sex magazines. There is a problem over the criminal powers under the Burgh Police (Scotland) Act 1892 and in relation to certain offences being charged under common law. However, the new clause does not seek to invoke the criminal law.
On Tuesday 17 February, I asked the Under-Secretary of State about planning powers, and after dealing with offences relating to display, publication, distribution and sale of indecent or obscene material, he said:
Planning controls would apply only if a new building was involved."—[Official Report, 17 February 1981; Vol. 999, c. 108.]
As I have said, the controls apply also to a complete change of use, so I do not believe that the Minister's reply dealt satisfactorily with the situation.
Dundee district council is frustrated about the position. It was criticised earlier, but it responded in this instance to the objections raised. On Tuesday 10 March, the Courier and Advertiser stated:
The sex shop at 116 Strathmartine Road, Dundee, is to open today.
There appears to be little the district council can do about it, apart from ask the proprietor if he would move to another site, away from houses.

Mr. Alistair Barrie, chief planning officer, may tell the shopowner he believes alterations to the shopfront should have had planning permission.
He may also negotiate to see if the district council can offer 'more suitable' premises.
That is an interesting comment. The article also stated that Mr. James Hoey, the director of administration, would be writing to COSLA to approach the Secretary of State to amend the regulations about such shops.
Under our existing planning law there is no provision for local decisions on such facilities. We need legislation on change of use. The new clause is not revolutionary. It merely seeks to fill a gap in our planning law that has recently become apparent. There is considerable opposition to sex shops and a demand for local control.

Mr. Robert Maclennan: Has the hon. Gentleman considered that sex magazines and sex aids are terms of art? The clause raises problems of interpretation. Shops scattered throughout Scotland deal in magazines which may be considered by some to be sex magazines. If the hon. Gentleman does not intend that newsagents carrying explicit sex material should be caught by the provision, he will agree that there is an important problem of definition.

Mr. Wilson: Definition in these matters is always difficult. The problem with obscene publication prosecutions is how to define the material on display. As the hon. Member for Abingdon (Mr. Benyon) said when we were debating the Indecent Displays (Control) Bill, one can recognise an elephant but cannot always describe it. Nevertheless, definition has been attempted under the Burgh Police (Scotland) Act.
I object to explicit magazines being displayed in newsagents where children especially may see them, but the clause does not intend to deal with that problem, which is the subject of the Indecent Displays (Control) Bill. The clause deals with premises that advertise themselves explicitly as sex shops. There should, therefore, be no difficulty. Premises used for the sale of general goods or magazines are not covered by the proposal, but explicit magazines could possibly be dealt with under the criminal sanctions. The new clause is merely directed to change of use for planning purposes. The criminal law is unsatisfactory, but the new clause does not deal with that. We wish to give powers to local authorities to have some control over these new business ventures.

Mr. Foulkes: If the provision is to apply only to premises that call themselves sex shops, those seeking to open such shops will find an appropriate euphemism, just as massage parlours are a euphemism for an activity that is rather more than massage.

Mr. Wilson: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman's experience comes to him at second hand, perhaps through reading explicit magazines. I hurriedly withdraw that remark, but I do not think his point holds water. We are attempting to deal with a specific manifestation. Definitions can always be questioned, but I hope that my explanation has defined the basis on which planning authorities can deal with the matter. Elected councillors would be able to take the decisions, subject to the usual appeals under planning legislation.
Subsection (1) of the new clause states:
From and after the passing of this Act, any person who operates or who seeks to operate premises
—that would cover existing premises—


as a sex shop or a shop dealing in sex magazines or sex aids will be required to obtain planning permission from the local planning authority for the use of the premises for that purpose.
Even if premises had planning permission for use as a shop, they would need planning permission for the purposes detailed.

Mr. Bill Walker: Would contraceptives be considered sex aids? If so, how would the proposal affect family planning?

Mr. Wilson: Contraceptives are an aid to sex and an aid to birth control. I do not expect a problem to arise there.
Again, we are dealing with this not in relation to the criminal law but in relation to planning consent. We are talking about planning permission, not about whether it is legitimate or illegitimate to sell certain items in a given shop. We are providing that if it is a shop specialising in explicit sexual material it shall require permission or a licence from the local authority to operate. That is the first part of the new clause.
7.30 pm
Secondly, when a local authority receives an application for planning permission for such a use, it
shall have regard to the interests of amenity". 
I understand that that is normally included as part of the duty of a local authority and is normally specified in legislation on planning matters. I have added a specific reference to
the proximity of the premises to schools, churches and other shops.
The "other shops" may be premises where children perhaps gather. For example, there may be a shop selling filled rolls nearby, which children regularly visit.
The last part of the new clause is perhaps the most important. It specifies:
If the local planning authority allows the application, it shall have the power to grant the permission subject to such conditions as to access, display and external advertising as it may deem appropriate.
Many people may take exception not to the existence of a sex shop per se, but only to one which explicitly advertises its wares in a manner that some would consider obscene or corrupting to young people. Here again, Soho provides a very strong example.

Mr. William McKelvey: Perhaps this is the key to the whole issue. Perhaps we are being taken through the wrong procedure with regard to planning, when we should be considering whether legislation is required at the licensing level. That would cover all these points, particularly in regard to the character of the person applying for the licence. This type of legislation is fraught with all kinds of dangers. Total bans could be placed by some authorities when the public did not necessarily want such bans.

Mr. Wilson: If that were the case, the council would have to face the consequences of what it had done in not providing sex shops or whatever was required. I am saying that the control should be exercised at local level and that no such provision at present exists.
The hon. Gentleman says that it should perhaps be done by way of licensing, and in relation also to the character of the person who seeks to operate such a shop. That is a

valuable point, but a person of good character may operate such a shop in a way which may still provide difficulties in relation to external advertising.
The hon. Gentleman also said that this was perhaps not the vehicle by which the control should be exercised. I emphasise that it is the only vehicle open to us under the Bill. If one does not seize the opportunity when one can, one may end up with no control whatever, so that the rip-off, the profiteering and the obscene displays might continue for two, three or four years before there is a Bill capable of amendment to deal with the problem.
It is also suggested that the problem could be dealt with by way of the criminal law. Again, that is not possible under the legislation before us.
Subsection (3) of the new clause allows local planning authorities the power to grant permission, but also to lay down
conditions as to access, display and external advertising".
That is extremely important, as it would make it impossible for a person running such premises to put on displays which were objectionable if that had been made a formal condition. Assurances have been given in relation to such premises that there will be no adverse external advertising. But an assurance is worth something only if it is kept voluntarily by the person concerned. There are no controls which would allow intervention by any external agency unless the external display was so pornographic as to be caught under the criminal law. A great deal of objectionable display would therefore continue.
People are concerned. A new development is taking place. I hope that the House will therefore give the new clause a Second Reading.

Mr. Peter Fraser: Having put my name to the new clause, I listened with the closest attention to the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson). The case to which he referred in Strathmartine Road certainly caused a great deal of offence to the public in Dundee. It would be wrong of the House to underestimate the strength of feeling in the country, not merely about whether such shops should be prohibited or whether they have a legitimate role and location, but about whether, when a shop exists under the planning laws in a shopping precinct or shopping area in any village in the country, that shop should be able to be transformed without more ado into one which in its external advertising and within its precincts may sell and display the most explicit sexual material.
If, in his new clause, which I support, the hon. Gentleman was proposing the overall prohibition of sex shops, I appreciate that that would be a matter of great concern and should be debated by all hon. Members in the House, and not just by Scottish Members. That would be a considerable step to take and, as the hon. Gentleman has said, it would have considerable implications vis-a-vis the criminal law.
I do not believe that this is a matter that we can avoid with a nudge and a snigger. The public are concerned about it, and it should be dealt with extremely seriously. For example, on looking through the "use classes" order, the public would find that there already existed the most arcane distinctions between the types of use to which land, buildings or property may be put. They would be astonished to discover that although in certain circumstances in which a change of use may be allowed from one


type to another planning permission is required, to take a reductio ad absurdum case, under the present law a village grocer's shop may be changed into a sex shop without any control by anyone.
In those circumstances, the House should consider very carefully the situation that has developed. It might be open to question—and it was a reasonable question by the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. McKelvey)—whether licensing might be a more appropriate route to ensure that development of this type of commercial activity does not cause great offence to the public. I do not dissent from that view. It may well be appropriate to look also at licensing, but there are other areas, such as public houses, where there is dual control. At the moment, if there is a change of use from a shop to a licensed house it is not simply a matter of satisfying the licensing authorities that one is a fit and proper person to operate the premises as a public house. One has also to satisfy the planning authority that the change of use is appropriate for that property. I therefore emphasise that the suggestion that we should introduce the new clause does not necessarily exclude the use of licensing. Perhaps the Minister will say something about that.
The most important subsection—certainly the one that concerns me most—is subsection (3). I am not trying to exercise a total prohibition. All that I am arguing is that where permission is to be granted it should be
subject to such conditions as to access, display and external advertising
as may be deemed appropriate.
I am sure that all hon. Members can think of areas in their constituencies where it would be singularly inappropriate to open a sex shop. In order to give a local authority power to control such matters as
access, display and external advertising",
I hope that the House will give the new clause the most careful consideration.

Mr. Neil Carmichael: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson) for the opportunity to debate this subject. A sex shop has been opened on the edge of my constituency, in the constituency of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Galbraith). Unlike other hon. Members, I do not know the address, but it is located in Dumbarton Road. I have received many letters from headmistresses, church people and various other groups and individuals about the shop which makes me feel that the matter should be discussed in the House. Therefore, I welcome the new clause on the basis that it allows the House to discuss the subject.
Although planning law is the obvious heading under which we should discuss such a subject, we must be careful about exactly what we are discussing. The hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) raised the important question of definition. For example, if planning permission were granted, at what ratio of sex magazines would a shop be classed as a sex shop rather than as a newsagents? Some station bookstalls have prolific displays of magazines. At what point would such a place become a sex shop?
Many hon. Members will remember the abuses that took place in Scotland with regard to licensed grocers. To English people, a licensed grocer is roughly the equivalent of an off-licence. Such a grocer could sell alcoholic liquor, but he also had to stock groceries. Some licensed grocers displayed only a couple of packets of tea and a pound of

sugar, which seemed to satisfy the law, but the rest of the premises were stocked with alcoholic beverages. Therfore, some sort of definition is required.
There is no easy answer to this problem, and it is asking too much to believe that planning permission will solve the problem. I understand that the sex shop in my area has a blank front. I am not sure that that does not arouse more curiosity. As a child I always Wondered what was behind the doors of pubs, because in Scotland one cannot see what is behind pub doors. Similarly what happens inside betting premises must not be visible from the outside. I sometimes wonder whether many children regard that as a mystery, and whether in later life it is a reason why they are attracted into such places.
We must also ask how long the shop front will remain blank. If this is only an agreement, and if a person is required only to adhere to any obscenity regulations under the criminal law, there is no guarantee that the shutters will not come down at some point. Therefore, there is great difficulty about definition.
There is also a certain lack of consistency. If we use the planning laws simply to stop sex shops coming into being, we shall get into greater difficulty. All a person needs to do is to change the name to some other type of shop, as was suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Foulkes).
7.45 pm
I have great sympathy with those who have written to me objecting to the opening of sex shops in the heart of densely residential areas. In Glasgow it is almost impossible to open such a shop in a residential area without its being close to a school. Such shops would have to be restricted to the centre of the city, where there are fewer schools. In addition, the rip-off would not be as great, because rents would be much higher. As a result those who run these seedy places would be unwilling to move into the centre of the city.
I am glad that we have had the opportunity to discuss this matter. I should like to hear the opinion of the House and that of the Minister. I am sure that he and his Department have looked at the principle thoroughly. I also hope that my constituents, and those of the hon. Member for Hillhead, realise that no simple or easy solution can cover this subject. An old Scots tag is "Hard cases make bad law". If we jumped too hard on the shop in Dumbarton Road, it might perhaps lead to making very bad law indeed.

Mr. Foulkes: I had hoped that the Minister would spring to his feet to make a statement. It would be helpful if we had the Government's view, particularly now that the Minister has his professional adviser, the Solicitor-General for Scotland, beside him.
Most hon. Members have sympathy with the aims of the new clause. I have had correspondence with the Minister on a similar problem which I suggested could be dealt with in the Bill. However, he discouraged me from doing so.
Like the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan), I am concerned about the definition of a shop dealing in sex magazines. Such a definition is far too wide. The inclusion of sex aids would also make any definition unclear. For example, some hon. Members have already asked whether contraceptives would be included. We might also ask whether "Playboy" would be included


in any definition, because I believe that the Festival of Light and other organisations have challenged the view that such publications are sex magazines.
I wonder whether hon. Members who support the new clause can say that the planning procedures are appropriate. My hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. McKelvey) rightly said that the licensing procedures could perhaps be more appropriate. It might be that this matter should be dealt with by the criminal law. The hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson) alluded to the criminal law but brushed it aside and did not say whether it would be appropriate.

Mr. Gordon Wilson: The hon. Gentleman will have heard the remarks of the hon. Member for South Angus (Mr. Fraser), who pointed out that licensed premises were subject to dual control. They first require planning permission for use as a public house and, secondly, the individual and premises are subject to a licence. The criminal law also plays a part in what is sold within licensed premises as well as to whom and when such products may be sold. Each of those controls has its part to play. I suggest that the planning procedures have a part to play in the subject now under discussion.

Mr. Foulkes: I appreciate that, but I wonder whether this approach has been thought out because it is taken in isolation of other aspects of the problem. I am not unsympathetic to what is sought, but it has many loopholes. One hon. Member discussed the possibility of an appeal to the Secretary of State, but if there were such an appeal, upon what critieria would the Secretary of State make his judgment? It would create all sorts of difficulties to use the planning laws. How could the person who is turned down argue on planning criteria when he will have been rejected because he wants to establish a sex shop?
I raised with the Under-Secretary the proliferation of "Space Invaders", an electronic game that is causing many problems for our young people; they are becoming addicted to it. They are stealing money to put in the slot machines in order to play it. Hon. Members may ask what "Space Invaders" have to do with sex shops. I asked the Under-Secretary whether it was possible to introduce a clause to deal with the proliferation in arcades and elsewhere of the "Space Invaders" game. The hon. Gentleman said that the Bill was not the most appropriate vehicle with which to tackle the issue. He also gave me some rubbish about "Space Invaders" fading away. As electronics become more sophisticated, I believe that the game will create an even greater hazard.
I understand the point about the difficulties of dealing with the problem under the planning laws. The solution proposed by the hon. Member for Dundee, East in respect of sex shops will, I say with the best will in the world, create many more problems than it solves. I ask the Minister to urge the hon. Gentleman to accept that there is a great deal of sympathy for his aims. He should withdraw the clause and if he can produce a better answer he will have the support of people such as myself who are worried about the mechanism he has chosen to propose today.

Mr. Bill Walker: I cannot take up the points made by the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Foulkes) about "Space Invaders", because I do not know the game.

However, I applaud the motives behind the clause. Sex shops are a manifestation of the declining standards of our society, and we are right to worry about that.

Mr. Robert Hughes: Sex shops are a manifestation of the capitalist ability to exploit every possible greed. I am surprised that Conservative Members should be attacking them when they represent exactly the ethos that they propound—"Make money any way you can and never mind people's sensibilities".

Mr. Walker: I hope that by his intervention the hon. Member was not suggesting that he had ever heard me subscribe to the view that one can make money any way or anyhow. I have never subscribed to that view. There are ways of proceeding that are acceptable to the majority. Conservatism and the theories of free enterprise and capitalism have nothing whatever to do with what the hon. Member has been saying. Some of the most Socialist countries in Europe exploit sex shops most. I have travelled extensively in Europe, and I have photographs of sex shops in some of the most obscure places.

Mr. Gordon Wilson: My clause proposes a change in terms of planning controls, not nationalisation.

Mr. Walker: I shall come to that point. I felt it necessary, in view of the intervention of the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes), to explain to the less enlightened that sex shops can be found in Socialist States.
The problems in Strathmartine Road are serious and we should treat them with the seriousness that they merit. Those who live in the area are genuinely concerned, particularly for their children. They object to the way in which items are displayed and to what goes on, and I understand that. However, regardless of what they are selling, retailers are already subjected to too many regulations and planning restrictions, and the clause is probably therefore not the most effective way of tackling the problem.
We are looking not for a one-off cure, something to deal with what has happened in Strathmartine Road, but for a good law that will effectively deal with this type of problem generally. I have grave reservations about whether that is a description of the clause. I am in no way arguing against the desirability of what the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson) is seeking to achieve, but we should think seriously about how we tackle the problem.
That brings me back to the question that I asked earlier about sex aids. I have visions of the local barber's shop, which may not give many haircuts, but which might sell many other items that provide a margin that enables the proprietor to keep his barber's shop open. There are dangers in proposals of this sort, and I have strong reservations about them.

Mr. Ernie Ross: I rise with slight trepidation having listened to speeches on the clause, to which I have appended my name. I am speaking simply to draw the attention of the House, particularly those hon. Members who do not have sex shops in their constituencies, to the problems that arise when business men, seeking to exploit human nature, decide to set up such shops.
It is obvious from the reaction since it was announced that a sex shop would open in Strathmartine Road that very few people in Dundee are anxious to have the benefits of


Soho exported to their part of the country. What Dundee would like is to have those establishments that the sex shops have displaced from Soho. I recall as a young boy, and later as a young man, visiting London and being struck by the number of small family businesses in Covent Garden and Soho, shops selling wine, cheese, or home crafts, and restaurants. Now as one goes through that area one is confronted with sights which some might find pleasing but others would find objectionable. They do nothing to attract tourism to London and they add nothing to the amenities of the area.
Colleagues and I would visit restaurants where, sitting at a table, one could look through the front window and witness the most extraordinary displays in sex shops across the road. Other hon. Members may feel, as I do, that although the restaurants are small and high-class, the adjoining premises deter one from going to the area.
8 pm
My hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) was right when he referred in an intervention to the sex shop as being an extension of the sort of society in which we live, where the prime motive is greed rather than need. It is that type of greed that has driven family businesses out of Soho. It is also that type of greed that has caused people to move to Dundee where they hope to make more profit from a sex shop than they might be able to make in London, where there is greater competition. I do not think that they will be very successful. However, that is not the real answer to the problem.
We are suggesting in the new clause that some attempt at least should be made to control the expansion of this booming business, which is an unwelcome hazard for parents and families who hope that their children or friends or relatives will learn about the facts of life in a normal manner and will not be confronted with displays in sex shop windows every time they go down the road.
The owner of the shop in question has given verbal assurances to the local authority that the shop window will not give offence to people. He has drawn our attention to the type of shop window that is found in London, to which there is so much objection, and indicated the sort of premises that he would like to open.
My hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Foulkes) indicated the real concern that is now felt by parents because of the boom in what are called "space invaders". Many young people who leave home in the morning with their lunch money spend almost all of it on machines of the sort described by my hon. Friend. I am not suggesting that the same children might want to spend all their money in sex shops, but the curiosity element may draw children at least to see what the shop looks like inside. One never knows what will happen once children or young people are attracted to shops of that sort.
It would seem from the debate that the more appropriate method of controlling this type of development might be through the local licensing committee. But if a local authority were to refuse a public house planning application because it would attract alcoholics, it would lose an appeal against its decision. Likewise, supposing the new clause were to be passed, if a local authority were to refuse planning permission because this type of shop attracted a certain type of sexual deviant, not a single planning objection along those lines could be sustained on appeal.
The Minister may be able to give us some indication of how he believes the problem should be handled. Those who have tabled the new clause may then wish to beg to ask leave to withdraw it, but that will depend on what he says in reply to the debate.

Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson) is to be complimented on bringing forward a subject which is obviously of interest to the House. Indeed, he has attracted to the new clause the support of the hon. Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Ross) and my hon. Friend the Member for South Angus (Mr. Fraser). Such an unholy trinity of names has never before appeared on the Order Paper and that will probably put off the rest of the House.
The hon. Member for Dundee, West mentioned that one of the things that he is seeking to avoid is what happens in Soho. My hon. Friend the Member for City of London and Westminster, South (Mr. Brooke) has been present during the debate, and I believe that Soho falls within his constituency. I do not think that any hon. Member has any sympathy with or basic support for the establishment of sex shops or, indeed, for their proliferation in the cities of Scotland or any other part of the country. It is a most disagreeable matter and one which gives proper concern in Dundee and Edinburgh and one or two other places where such shops have begun to appear.
What we have to consider is whether the planning laws are necessarily the appropriate way in which to seek to control the spread of facilities of this kind, and not only whether it is the appropriate way but whether it is possible successfully to use the planning laws to control developments of this kind.
The hon. Member for Dundee, East has tried to frame his new clause in such a way that it would apply only to what he and the House understand to be sex shops, but the hon. Member for South Ayrshire was right to point out that, under the definition in the new clause, it would be very difficult to exempt from that category shops such as chemists which might sell contraceptives, or other shops which might have a small number of sex books or material as part of a larger stock.
The Government are not convinced that we are really dealing with a planning matter in any event. Planning is a well-established part of our law, and the planning considerations that the local planning authority should take into account—and the Secretary of State, if there is to be an appeal to him—may not be able to be related to the moral considerations with which we are concerned at the moment.

Mr. Robert Hughes: Two objections are being raised. One is, in principle, to the establishment of the shop, and the other is to the kind of material that is displayed in shop windows. Will the Minister tell me whether, under the existing planning law, the facade of the shop can be controlled if it changes use?

Mr. Rifkind: With regard to the display of obscene material or literature, under the existing borough byelaws, there can in certain circumstances be a prosecution for display or sale. With regard to change of use, if the premises in question are at the moment used as a shop for retail purposes, no change of use is involved and therefore no planning permission is required. If the building is used for a purpose other than a shop and it is intended that it should be used in this way, planning permission is


required. But even then the local authority, in deciding whether to grant permission, can only take into account legitimate planning considerations and cannot exert moral approval or disapproval as to whether it is a sex shop or some other kind of shop.
It would be very difficult under existing planning law for a local authority to say that if a shop were to be used for any other purpose it would have granted permission, but that because it was planned to open a sex shop permission was refused.

Mr. Peter Fraser: Is the Minister saying that if, for example, someone made application to open a public house between a church and a school, it would not be a legitimate ground for the planning authority to refuse the application on that basis?

Mr. Rifkind: I am not saying that it is impossible, but it would be a difficult matter. My hon. Friend is right in pointing to the example of a public house, for there we have a situation in which the real control of whether a public house should or should not exist is not a planning matter but a licensing matter. [Interruption.] The right hon. Member for Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Millan) is beginning to indulge in his favourite habit of intervening from a sedentary position.
I think the House will accept that, when we are dealing with public houses, gambling premises, or matters of that kind, if society wishes—and quite rightly—to exert control over them, that is exactly the purpose for which licensing Acts and licensing authorities have been established and those authorities consider just the sort of factors about which hon. Members have spoken in dealing with this matter.
There is an argument that, if society wishes to exert control over the spread of these sorts of establishment, some form of licensing might or might not be appropriate or ought to be considered. The Government have come to no firm decision at this stage on whether the existing law is sufficient to deal with problems of this kind. I do not exclude the possibility that some form of licensing may be considered appropriate, or that the planning laws may turn out to be one means of exerting some form of control.
I do not say that it is impossible to think in terms of the planning laws. However, it would be difficult to draft appropriate and enforceable legislation to deal with the planning aspect of these establishments. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will withdraw the new clause. The Government intend to give further consideration to whether the existing law should be modified or reformed in some way. Next year, the Civic Government Bill will cover the general question of licensing and will give us an opportunity to consider the matter in greater detail.

Mr. Peter Fraser: I should like my hon. Friend to give an undertaking that he does not exclude the idea that the planning laws are the proper basis for control. I accept that there may be difficulties in our defination of a sex shop, but I hope that my hon. Friend will give an undertaking that he will consider the possibility that the new clause provides a legitimate means of controlling these premises.

Mr. Rifkind: I do not exclude the planning laws as a possible means of exercising control. However, if control is appropriate, it might be more sensible to use licensing provisions than planning provisions.

Mr. Dewar: I listened carefully to the Minister's remarks. I appreciate that it is often difficult to find the right formula of words to deal with a sensitive subject when the answer amounts to "No". The Minister has not shown any particular skill in finding that formula. Despite the effects of the hon. Member for South Angus (Mr. Fraser), I am left in some doubt about the Government's position.
From the speeches that have been made it is clear that there is some concern over this matter. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Kelvingrove (Mr. Carmichael), I represent a part of Glasgow that is comparatively near to a shop that has opened in Dumbarton Road. I am aware that there is a good deal of public concern over this matter. The arrival of such a shop is throughly offensive to many people.
A number of broad approaches could be taken. Perfectly honourably, one could take the libertarian view that if people want to open sex shops they should be allowed to do so. If the shop's goods do not sell, and if there is no interest in the shop, it will wither away as a result of market forces and a lack of interest. It could be said that it is not for us to set standards and that the sort of shops that people open is entirely a matter for them. That would be a remarkable view for the House to adopt. It would not be endorsed by many hon. Members, including myself.
8.15 pm
If the laissez-faire approach is not adopted, a number of other lines of approach stand open. One could take the view that this is a matter for criminal law. That is not an entirely satisfactory approach. I am sure that the Minister will accept that recently there have been great difficulties with the criminal law. The Solicitor-General has made a number of determined efforts to mount prosecutions against Menzies, the well-known stationers, and perhaps against W. H. Smith on the ground that such shops have made indecent displays by selling certain magazines. 
I have strong views about whether those prosecutions were wise and whether they should have been maintained. Such prosecutions underline the difficulties involved in criminal law and in the use of definitions. The definitions contained in the new clause have been criticised, but we should accept that almost any line of approach will involve similar problems of definition. I do not favour leaving the matter entirely to the criminal law, with all the difficulties that that involves. The idea of making this a criminal offence involves difficulties. It imports an element of moral turpitide and of judgment. In some ways I am reluctant to become involved in that debate.
Planning permission involves a different concept. In spirit, it is more appropriate to what I should like to achieve. In terms of the criminal law, the Civic Government Bill will provide a splendid opportunity to deal with this matter. It will deal with several analogous subjects. If it is not introduced in this Session, it will be introduced in the next one. We are not dealing with the criminal law. We have a choice between doing nothing—which, to judge from by hon. Members remarks, would not be acceptable—and considering licensing or planning legislation.
I could not understand the Minister's reaction to the point made by the hon. Member for South Angus, who reasonably pointed out that if a public house or betting shop was to be sited between a school and a church the


local planning authority would have to take that into account. That is self-evident. The Minister was right to refer to licensing, but that is a separate matter. There is no need to drag it into this argument. Licensing might apply to the suitability of the applicant. It might be used as a means of controlling the total number of shops. The one thing that it will not deal with is the location of a particular shop.
The kernel of the problem is the location of a shop. Personally, I should not side with someone who argued that a shop that sold sex goods or objects should not be allowed to operate under any circumstances. I have never had the courage to recommend that sort of moral absolute to my electorate or to any of my colleagues. It is self-evident that if there is a place for such shops—however much one may not want to patronise them—we must not drive them underground.
Nevertheless, given that such a development is offensive to certain people in society, and given also that their operation can give rise to anxiety, it is right that there should be some means of considering whether the shop's location is suitable and appropriate. If that view is taken, the matter must fall fairly and squarely within the ambit of planning law.
Despite all the imperfections that elected local government representatives may or may not have, they should be the arbitrators of such decisions. After all, they deal with the great majority of planning matters. Therefore, our planning law should be amended. I do not want to nit-pick. I am sure that the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson) will accept that a good deal of work will have to be done on new clause 6 if it is to find favour with the House. The definition gives rise to considerable problems. It seeks to catch someone who
operates or who seeks to operate premises as a sex shop or a shop dealing in sex magazines or sex aids.
It was almost suggested that if an existing shop changed its stock in order to sell sex magazines it might be caught by this provision and be subject to a closure order. That brings us back to my earlier remarks about the criminal prosecutions that the Solicitor-General has mounted.
Although definitions are always a problem and are not an excuse for doing nothing, this definition must be considered more carefully than is possible now. The Minister has resources and advisers. If the general principle is acceptable to the House, I am sure that it could be considered between now and the Bill's final passage towards Royal Assent—should that prove the will of Parliament.
I do not at this stage advise my right hon. and hon. Friends to vote for or against the clause. I shall not try to influence them on this matter. They are entitled to make up their own minds on the issue. However, if the hon. Member for Dundee, East presses this matter to a Division I shall vote with him because, for the reasons that I have outlined, the area in which he has placed the new clause is the right one. By voting for it and possibly passing it at this stage we would force the Minister—I hope that he does not think that this is in some ways ungracious and ungallant—to do the necessary tidying up, the fine honing, which would allow the new clause to appear on the statute book.
I speak for myself. I hope that some of the points that I have made will appear reasonable to my right hon. and hon. Friends. We shall see later, if the matter is pressed to a Division.

Mr. Gordon Wilson: I shall be brief. If the Minister had said that he welcomed the principle behind the new clause and preferred me to withdraw it so that he could produce a better drafted clause or amendment to the Bill to take care of the problem, I should have asked leave to withdraw the motion. There are drafting problems. I accept what the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) said about it being difficult to get perfection in these matters, even if one consults planning legislation for style.
The Minister held out the slight hope that new civic government legislation might incorporate some reference to this matter, but he was politely and effectively saying that he did not intend to do anything further about this problem.
There is a principle at stake here. People feel that their standards are being invaded and that their children may be exposed to corruption, and so on. In the circumstances, with the Minister remaining silent and obdurate, I have no alternative but to push the clause to a vote.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 114, Noes 163.

Division No. 113]
[8.22 pm


AYES


Adams, Allen
Hogg, N. (E Dunb't'nshire)


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Home Robertson, John


Ashton, Joe
Hooley, Frank


Beith, A.J.
Howell, Rt Hon D.


Booth, Rt Hon Albert
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Janner, Hon Greville


Bray, Dr Jeremy
John, Brynmor


Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)
Johnston, Russell(Inverness)


Callaghan, Jim(Midd't'n &amp; P)
Jones, Barry (East Flint)


Campbell, Ian
Lambie, David


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Lamond, James


Canavan, Dennis
Leadbitter, Ted


Carmichael, Neil
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Litherland, Robert


Cocks, Rt Hon M. (B'stol S)
Lofthouse, Geoffrey


Coleman, Donald
Mabon, Rt Hon Dr J. Dickson


Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.
McCartney, Hugh


Cook, Robin F.
McDonald, Dr Oonagh


Cowans, Harry
McGuire, Michael(7nce,)


Cox, T.(W'dsw'th, Toot'g)
McKay, Allen(Penistone)


Craigen, J. M.
McKelvey, William


Crawshaw, Richard
MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor


Cryer, Bob
Maclennan, Robert


Dalyell, Tam
McNamara, Kevin


Davis, T. (B'ham, Stechf'd)
McTaggart, Robert


Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
McWilliam, John


Dempsey, James
Mason, Rt Hon Roy


Dewar, Donald
Maynard, Miss Joan


Dixon, Donald
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce


Dobson, Frank
Mitchell, R. C. (Soton Itchen)


Dormand, Jack
Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)


Douglas, Dick
Morris, Rt Hon C. (O'shaw)


Duffy, A. E. P.
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Eadie, Alex
Palmer, Arthur


Eastham, Ken
Powell, Raymond(Ogmore)


Edwards, R. (W'hampt'n S E)
Prescott, John


Evans, loan (Aberdare)
Roberts, Albert(Normanton)


Fitt, Gerard
Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Roper, John


Ford, Ben
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


Foster, Derek
Sever, John


Fraser, Peter (South Angus)
Short, Mrs Renée


Grant, George(Morpeth)
Silverman, Julius


Grant, John (Islington C)
Skinner, Dennis


Grimond, Rt Hon J.
Soley, Clive


Hamilton, James(Bothwell)
Spearing, Nigel


Hamilton, W. W. (C'tral Fife)
Stallard, A. W.


Hardy, Peter
Steel, Rt Hon David


Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Stewart, Rt Hon D. (W Isles)


Haynes, Frank
Stoddart, David






Stott, Roger
White, J.(G'gow Pollok)


Strang, Gavin
Wigley, Dafydd


Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)
Wilson, William (C'try SE)


Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)
Winnick, David


Tinn, James
Woolmer, Kenneth


Wainwright, E.(Dearne V)



Walker, B. (Perth)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Weetch, Ken
Mr. Gordon Wilson and


White, Frank R.
Mr. Ernie Ross.




NOES


Alexander, Richard
Knight, Mrs Jill


Ancram, Michael
Knox, David


Atkins, Robert(Preston N)
Lang, Ian


Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)
Lawrence, Ivan


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
LeMarchant, Spencer


Bendall, Vivian
Lester Jim (Beeston)


Benyon, Thomas(A'don)
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Berry, Hon Anthony
Lyell, Nicholas


Best, Keith
Macfarlane, Neil


Bevan, David Gilroy
MacGregor, John


Biggs-Davison, John
MacKay, John (Argyll)


Blackburn, John
McNair-Wilson, M.(N'bury)


Bonsor. Sir Nicholas
McQuarrie, Albert


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Major, John


Braine, Sir Bernard
Marlow, Tony


Bright, Graham
Marten, Neil(Banbuny)


Brinton, Tim
Mather, Carol


Brotherton, Michael
Maude, Rt Hon Sir Angus


Budgen, Nick
Mawby, Ray


Cadbury, Jocelyn
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Carlisle, John(Luton West)
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Carlisle, Kenneth(Lincoln)
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Chalker, Mrs. Lynda
Miller, Hal(B'grove)


Chapman, Sydney
Mills, Iain(Meriden)


Clark, Hon A.(Plym'th, S'n)
Mills, Peter (West Devon)


Clark, Sir W.(Croydon S)
Moate, Roger


Clarke, Kenneth(Rushcliffe)
Monro, Hector


Cockeram, Eric
Morgan, Geraint


Colvin, Michael
Morrison, Hon C.(Devizes)


Cope, John
Mudd, David


Corrie, John
Murphy, Christopher


Cranborne, Viscount
Myles, David


Crouch, David
Neale, Gerrard


Dover, Denshore
Needham, Richard


Dunn, Robert(Dartford)
Nelson, Anthony


Dykes, Hugh
Neubert, Michael


Fairbairn, Nicholas
Newton, Tony


Fairgrieve, Russell
Normanton, Tom


Fenner, Mrs Peggy
Page, Rt Hon Sir G. (Crosby)


Fletcher, A. (Ed'nb'gh N)
Page, Richard (SW Herts)


Fletcher-Cooke, Sir Charles
Parris, Matthew


Fookes, Miss Janet
Pattie, Geoffrey


Fowler, Rt Hon Norman
Percival, Sir Ian


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Peyton, Rt Hon John


Goodhart, Philip
Pollock, Alexander


Goodlad, Alastair
Prentice, Rt Hon Reg


Gorst, John
Proctor, K. Harvey


Gray, Hamish
Raison, Timothy


Greenway, Harry
Rathbone, Tim


Griffiths, Peter Portsm'th N)
Renton, Tim


Grist, Ian
Rhodes James, Robert


Grylls, Michael
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Gummer, John Selwyn
Rifkind, Malcolm


Hamilton, Michael(Salisbury)
Roberts, M. (Cardiff NW)


Hannam, John
Rossi, Hugh


Haselhurst, Alan
Rost, Peter


Hawkins, Paul
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy


Hawksley, Warren
Scott, Nicholas


Hayhoe, Barney
Shepherd, Colin(Hereford)


Heddle, John
Skeet, T. H. H.


Henderson, Barry
Speller, Tony


Hill, James
Spence, John


Hogg, Hon Douglas(Gr'th'm)
Spicer, Jim (West Dorset)


Hordern, Peter
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk)
Sproat, Iain


Hunt, John(Ravensbourne)
Squire, Robin


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Stainton, Keith


Kaberry, Sir Donald
Stanbrook, Ivor


King, Rt Hon Tom
Steen, Anthony





Stewart, A. (E Renfrewshire)
Waller, Gary


Stradling Thomas, J.
Ward, John


Temple-Morris, Peter
Watson, John


Thomas, Rt Hon Peter
Wells, John(Maidstone)


Thompson, Donald
Wells, Bowen


Thorne, Neil(Ilford South)
Wheeler, John


Thornton, Malcolm
Wickenden, Keith


Townend, John(Bridlington)
Williams, D.(Montgomery)


Townsend, Cyril D,(B'heath)
Wolfson, Mark


Trippier, David
Younger, Rt Hon George


Viggers, Peter



Waddington, David
Tellers for the Noes:


Wainwright, R.(Colne V)
Lord James Douglas-Hamilton and


Wakeham, John
Mr. Peter Brooke.


Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir D.

Question accordingly negatived.

Orders of the Day — New Clause 7

SALE OF PUBLIC-SECTOR HOUSES FOR THE ELDERLY

'In section 3A of the Tenants' Rights, Etc. (Scotland) Act 1980, for subsection (1) the following is substituted—
(1) This section applies to a dwelling house which has been designed or specially adapted for occupation by an elderly person or persons and it is the practice of the landlord to let the dwelling house only for occupation by such persons."'.—[Mr. Millan.]

Brought up, and read the first time.

Mr. Bruce Millan: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
With this new clause we return to the matter of the Tenants' Rights, Etc. (Scotland) Act which Parliament passed only a few months ago. We return to it for a very simple reason. We are returning to arguments that we made at that time but which bear repetition because the realities of that Act and its impact on local authorities in Scotland have become even more evident since we passed it.
As the House has a lot of other business before it, I shall not speak for more than a few minutes about the clause. However, I hope that that will not be taken as any indication of a lack of feeling about the clause or about the level of importance that we attach to it, because we consider that it is very important.
When the Government made a concession last summer during the passage of the equivalent English Act, the Housing Act, to deal with housing for the elderly, we were given the most explicit assurance by the Secretary of State for Scotland and other Ministers that appropriate legislation would be introduced for Scotland which would make the position in Scotland exactly the same as that in England and would exclude from the compulsory sale of council houses housing specifically designed for the elderly.
The reality is that under the exemption in the English Act from the compulsory sale of council houses to protect the interests of the elderly, which is what the debate is about, about 220,000 additional houses were excluded from the right-to-buy provisions.
The more restricted definition incorporated in the Scottish Bill and the full impact of the definition and understanding of what is imported became clear during the discussions. It meant that far from there being a proportionate number of exemptions in Scotland, those added by the Bill amounted only to about 6,000. There were approximately 220,000 in England and Wales, but in Scotland, which has proportionately more council


houses, the Government proposed a restricted definition in the amendment Act which exempted only 6,000 houses in Scotland, bringing the total to about 12,000. The total of exempted houses in England and Wales is more than 400,000.
At the time I said that the Government had not fulfilled the promise made to the House, especially to the Opposition and that the Government had cheated. The Conservatives have so little interest in this important matter that there is not one of them here to discuss it. Thousands of their constituents are affected by the compulsory sale provisions. When houses for the elderly are compulsorily sold under the provisions of the 1980 Act, they will disappear from the pool of housing available for the elderly.
As every hon. Member should know—I repeat that not one Conservative Member is here—there is a desperate shortage of housing in Scotland for the elderly. It is scandalous that local authorities should be compelled by legislation to dispose of what little they have in the way of housing specially for the elderly.

Mr. Russell Johnston: I am reluctant to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman as I know that he does not wish to delay the House for too long, but it might be of value if he would briefly recall the main differences between the English and the Scottish legislation.

Mr. Millan: The main difference is simple. In the new clause I have incorporated the wording of the English Housing Act. I shall explain the differences and how the provisions of the Scottish Act are considerably more restrictive.
Unless the situation has changed since the Act was passed, the result of using that definition was that the total number of dwellings safeguarded in Scotland was less than 6,000. It is so-called amenity housing. A table in the Scottish housing statistics gives the figures. As the hon. Member for Inverness (Mr. Johnston) has intervened, I shall give him the figure for Inverness. He will be glad to know that the number of exemptions under the Government's definition is nil. There are no amenity housing units in the Inverness district. The same is true of Lochaber and a number of other districts in Scotland. Skye and Lochalsh has eight houses within the definition, but not one house in Inverness is covered by the amendment Act, which was meant to place us on all fours with England and Wales.
Not a single house in Glasgow city is included among the amenity houses. The total for the whole of Scotland is less than 6,000. A considerable number of those are in one or two districts. For example, Kirkcaldy has 3,400 and Aberdeen about 1,200. Most of the other districts have very few.
The Scottish Act states:
This section applies to a dwelling-house which has facilities which are substantially different from those of an ordinary dwelling-house and which has been designed or adapted for occupation by an elderly person whose special needs require accommodation of the kind provided by the dwelling-house.
Under that Act, two qualifications have to be met which do not have to be met in the English legislation. First, a dwelling house must have facilities which are
substantially different from those of an ordinary dwelling-house";
and, secondly, the occupant must have special needs that
require accommodation of the kind provided by the dwelling-house.

Most old people's housing is different from other types of housing simply because it is designed for old people and it is smaller. It is normally in a development where the rest of the houses are smaller and particularly suitable for elderly persons and where it is, in the words of the English legislation, the practice of the landlord to let the premises only for occupation by elderly people.
Most old people's housing in Scotland is not "substantially different" from an ordinary dwelling house. It just happens to be smaller, with only one bedroom or with a bed in a recess of the sitting room. Similarly most elderly people in such housing do not have special needs that require such accommodation. Their only special need is for a small house. They are not necessarily disabled or suffering from a physical or other disability that means that they must live in that size of house. They are simply elderly and they require that sort of accommodation.
The use of the restrictive terms in the Scottish legislation excludes the generality of old people's housing, including every old person's house in Inverness—there must be some—because none comes within the definition of amenity housing. They are not "substantially different" from ordinary dwelling houses and they are not occupied by people who have special needs, other than the need to occupy a smaller dwelling because they are elderly and have no family living with them.
I have told local authorities that have asked me for advice to apply for exemption for other houses that do not fall within the strict definition of amenity housing. I am not sure what has been the result of that. The Secretary of State must give special permission before a local authority can refuse the right to buy.
The Government cheated on the obligations that they made solemnly to the House. They did not produce legislation that was on all fours with the English Act; they produced much more restrictive legislation. No justification was given for that at the time, and there has been none since.
Since the. Act was passed, Scottish local authorities have realised its full import and the restrictive nature of its drafting and they have become increasingly angry and concerned about the impact of the right-to-buy provisions on housing for the elderly, which is already too limited to deal with the needs of elderly people in Scotland, and which, if the Act is not amended, will become even more limited as housing is taken out of the local authority stock and, in some cases, rapidly lost to elderly people.
Basically, those houses are smaller houses which are also attractive to young married couples. My right hon. and hon. Friends and I feel strongly about this matter. That is why we have raised it again. Even now the Government could do the honest thing and accept the new clause and discharge the promises that they solemnly made to the House.

Mr. John Home Robertson: My right hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Millan) is right to point out that the Government have cheated on a fair undertaking. It might be helpful if I refer briefly to the course of events on 6 August last year, when a specific undertaking was given that an exclusion would be provided that would protect genuine old people's accommodation and council houses from the provisions of this ludicrous legislation, which compels local authorities to sell their property.
As Members will recall, on that occasion there was a bit of a debacle in the House. The Secretary of State for the Environment was alarmed that he might lose his entire Housing Bill. He therefore decided to do a deal with my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley). The Secretary of State said:
The Government have considered the amendments and have decided to widen the exclusions so that genuine elderly persons' accommodation is excluded".
My right hon. Friend pressed him further, and the right hon. Gentleman went on to say:
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland has authorised me to say, as regards the Tenants' Rights Etc. (Scotland) Bill that he will facilitate legislation to make a change along the lines that I have announced."—[Official Report, 6 August 1980; Vol. 990, c. 562.]
I should have thought that that made the position clear. The intention was that these old people's houses would be protected from the provisions of the sell-off legislation in England, and similarly in Scotland, and in due course the Government came forward with the amendment to which my right hon. Friend referred.
During a debate on 5 November last year my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Provan (Mr. Brown) pressed the Minister about the houses that would be covered under the terms of the amending Bill. My hon. Friend asked:
I should like to know where the 6,000 houses are located. How was that figure arrived at?
The Under-Secretary of State replied:
I refer him to the Scottish housing statistics published by the Scottish Development Department for the third quarter of 1979. Page 35 gives a list of all the amenity housing, where it is and in which district it can be found."—[Official Report, 5 November 1980; Vol. 991, c. 1372.]
We understood that 6,000 genuine old people's council houses would be protected under the legislation. The following day I obtained the list from the Library and discovered that there were not 6,000 houses in that category, but only 5,857. One might have assumed that these houses would be spread around the districts of Scotland. I found, however, that 3,452 were in Fife, and that of those 3,414 were in Kirkcaldy. A further 1,204 were in the city of Aberdeen. There were practically none in many areas, including Edinburgh, Glasgow and my constituency.
There have since been some comings and goings over the precise descriptions of properties that come within the protection of the amending legislation. It has also been revealed that the one and only old people's adapted house in one of the Highland districts has been sold because it apparently did not qualify for the protection.
My remarks and those of my right hon. Friend make it clear that the Government have reneged on a clear undertaking. They have cheated. The opportunity now provided by my right hon. Friend will make it possible, once and for all, to bring our legislation into line with that of England and Wales, in accordance with the clear promise and undertaking given by the Secretary of State for the Environment last year, and flagrantly broken by the Scottish Office.

Mr. Dempsey: The Secretary of State and the Department have not gone thoroughly enough into the provision of houses for the elderly, which has been a feature in Scotland for many years. The houses are not substantially different from other houses, but they were

built specially for the elderly, many after consultation with county medical officers, welfare departments and architects.
The interpretation that we have heard today seems to rule out almost all houses except those deliberately designed as sheltered accommodation. That is a grave mistake by the Government and the Department. When I was a member of a local authority, as I was for many years, we tried several experiments to meet the needs of the elderly, including beautiful sites with small semidetached villas for the elderly. We found that such developments isolated them, so we developed the idea of putting at each end of existing blocks of terrace houses two appartments for the elderly. That was done not by chance, or simply as a result of a sudden thought that came into the minds of those responsible, but after careful consideration and careful research and planning by architectural staffs.
Those houses, which are still allocated to the elderly, can now be sold. Houses that can be established to have been occupied for several years only by elderly persons should be exempt from sale. That would be fair and common sense. It should be taken for granted that houses occupied for year after year by retirement pensioners, houses deliberately built to accommodate old folk, should automatically be exempt from sale.
I should like the Minister to see some of the houses, the way in which they have been constructed and laid out especially to meet the convenience of old people, with no steps that can be difficult to negotiate, although the houses are not substantially different from others. If the Minister saw some of the houses he would realise that it is an error of judgment not to exempt them from sale. Some of them are already being sold, and that is reducing the pool for the elderly who are queueing up in large numbers for entry into these council houses.
I urge the Minister to realise, on reflection, that a mistake has been made. Let us put right that error. Let the Government take advantage of this new clause to make a statement that it is their intention to ensure that all houses in Scotland that have for some time been occupied by elderly people—whether or not the houses are substantially different from others—should be exempt from sale and retained in the pool to accommodate the old souls and at least give them a contented eventide.

Mr. Foulkes: I hope that the House will notice that the Scots Tories, who crowded into the Chamber for the discussion on sex shops, have evaporated now that we are discussing old people's housing. That is a demonstration of the priorities of Scots Tories.

Mr. Home Robertson: They voted for the sex shops.

Mr. Foulkes: Yes. Their absence now reveals the lack of concern that they have for the elderly. Perhaps they did not want to be in the Chamber to witness the embarrassment of the Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Rifkind), as he twists and writhes in attempting to explain away the allegations of my right hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Millan).
This is the biggest double deal that the old people in Scotland have seen—and they have seen so many double deals from this double-dealing Government. It was made clear to the old people that their housing would be protected. The Government made a solemn promise, but


when we come to the reality nothing could be further from the truth than their promise of protection. I am sorry that Conservative Members are not in the Chamber to see the Minister's embarrassment and shame. I am glad that my right hon. and hon. Friends are present to watch him writhe under the onslaught of my colleagues.
It is interesting that the Social Democrats, whom we keep hearing about, have not remained in the Chamber. I am glad to see that the old-fashioned Liberals are still able to maintain an interest. I note the presence of the hon. Member for Inverness (Mr. Johnston). Surely the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) should have been present to protect the 2,500 old people in Sutherland. It seems that only 18 houses in Sutherland are to be protected under the Bill. Where are the old people of Sutherland to stay?
I hoped that we would see some dynamism from the new party. It may be that its members are trying to work out their policies prior to the great ball that we are supposed to see on Thursday. As I said during the weekend, it is appropriate that one can join their party and pay for membership with plastic money. It is truly a plastic party for plastic people. The people of Scotland will pass their verdict. We would like an opportunity for the people of Scotland to pass a verdict. We would like the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland to go to his electorate.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Craigton rightly said that there is a desperate shortage of all forms of housing for old people in Scotland. There is a desperate shortage of sheltered housing and specially adapted housing. Will the shortage become less serious? The Under-Secretary of State might have some sort of argument if he were able to say "It does not matter about selling off these houses because we shall improve and develop the stock through our building, capital and adaptation programmes." However, the reverse is the truth. The hon. Gentleman is slashing the programme of housing for the elderly through the Housing Corporation.
For example, the hon. Gentleman had to write to me recently to reveal that the provision for special housing for the elderly will be reduced in real terms. The authority within my constituency of Cumnock and Doon Valley is having to review its position in association with sheltered housing associations that were hoping to provide sheltered housing—for example, the BIELD, the housing association in Cumnock—because of the cutbacks in the allocation to the Housing Corporation.
The local authorities are not getting the money to provide new houses for old people or adaptations. Many of my constituents come to my surgery who have disabled and elderly people in their households. They tell me that they have a desperate need for adaptation. They say that they have a great need for central heating, which is essential for old people in Scotland. We need adaptations because two-thirds of the disabled in our society are elderly. There are so many elderly people who are severely disabled and who need adaptations in their homes, but there is no money to enable them to be undertaken.
The desperate shortage that my right hon. Friend the Member for Craigton has talked about will become even worse because of the Government's proposals. I am glad to see that the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland with responsibility for health, the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, West (Mr. Fairgrieve), is on the Government Front Bench. The hon. Gentleman will have

to face some of the problems because his colleague, the hon. Member for Pentlands, who has responsibilities for housing, will not be able to meet the problems of old people.
Many of the old people who will not be able to go into houses specially adapted and designed for them will have to go into old people's homes and hospitals instead. The burden of responsibility on the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, West will be increased. I see that his brows are furrowed at the thought of that.
The hon. Member for Pentlands might say—he has been quoted as saying it—that the local authorities can redefine their housing and fiddle the number a little. That is entirely the wrong thing to suggest to local authorities. I know that lawyers are able to twist things, to make them seem what they are not. But, however much the Under-Secretary twists them, we know that he is cheating and that the Government promised to give us the same exemptions as in England and Wales. We know that we do not have those exemptions— the people of Scotland and the old people of Scotland know that. The old people will know that the Government and the Under-Secretary have cheated them, and they will never forget that.

9 pm

Mr. Russell Johnston: I shall not detain the House long. Unlike the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Foulkes) and the five Labour Members who are present, I support the sale of council houses, as the Minister knows. Therefore, I hope that he will bear that in mind when he listens to what I have to say in support of what right hon. Member for Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Millan) said. I ask him to reconsider the position.

Mr. Foulkes: Will the hon. Member give way?

Mr. Johnston: Do I give way to the present hon. Gentleman or to his reincarnation?

Mr. Foulkes: There must be only one present. The hon. Member said that five Labour Members were present. There are more than five Labour Members present, unless the hon. Gentleman knows something about what will happen on Thursday about which I do not know.

Mr. Johnston: The hon. Member is good at counting. The total is probably seven.

Mr. Home Robertson: Nine.

Mr. Johnston: Perhaps the total is eight.
I was making the point that, while it is regrettable that no Conservatives are here apart from those on the Front Bench, the hon. Member for South Ayrshire was a little rough on the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan). As a solitary Liberal, I know that it is not always possible to be present all the time. That point should not be too much stressed.
I know that the Minister cannot easily accept a proposal put forward by the right hon. Member for Craigton. However, I should have thought that he would give further thought and consideration to the fact that the definition is too narrow. I have always argued—I know that the Minister takes a contrary view—that the sale of council houses is not necessary and that there should not be an unfettered sale of council houses. The Minister has accepted that argument in principle by curbing the sales. Therefore, it is only a question of scale and degree.
That being so, I should have thought that the points cogently made by the right hon. Member for Craigton by


way of comparison between the situation south of the border and that in Scotland are ones to which the Minister must respond positively. Even if he does not immediately say that he will do something tonight and accept the wording or approach put forward by the right hon. Gentleman, I hope that he will say that he is sympathetic towards a genuine argument and that he will reconsider it, because the Bill has to go through the other place.

Mr. Lambie: I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Foulkes) about the lack of Tory Back Benchers. The Secretary of State for Scotland is not here, and no wonder. Kyle and Carrick district council is shared by us. The district has 17,000 old-age pensioners, yet under the legislation only 233 houses will be protected from sale, at a time when more and more elderly people are requiring houses adapted to their needs. My area of Cunninghame has 16,700 old-age pensioners. Every town has houses that can be earmarked for old people. In Saltcoats, about 100 yards from where I stay, in Old Raise Road, we have old people's houses that are not included in the provisions. The tenants will be allowed to buy those houses, even though we are all inundated with requests from elderly people living in four and five apartment houses who wish to move to one or two-apartment accommodation.
The English Minister responsible for housing, the Secretary of State for the Environment, covers an area of the United Kingdom where only one-third of the people live in council houses, yet he manages to get a better deal for council tenants than we do in Scotland. In Scotland, 65 per cent. of the people live in council houses. The bogy man, the Tarzan who is out to kill council housing, can clear 220,000 houses in England and Wales, yet the Secretary of State for Scotland, the decent person who never speaks and generally agrees with everyone, can clear only 6,000 houses.
The Scottish people vote Labour at local and parliamentary elections. We vote Labour wherever we can, and we are treated more badly than are the people in England, who vote Tory every five years. Perhaps if we started to vote Tory we should get better treatment from the Government. Where is the Secretary of State for Scotland? Does he not have the power to stop the sale of more than 60,000 houses that could be used to house elderly people? Only 6,000 are being protected. Why are Scottish Ministers more vindictive towards the people of Scotland than even the Secretary of State for the Environment is towards English council tenants?

Mr. Rifkind: For one small moment, part of the logic of the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Lambie) appealed to me, but his concluding remarks spoilt it.
The basic matter that we are debating is not, as some hon. Members on the Opposition Benches appear to suggest, whether all housing occupied by elderly persons should be exempt from the right to buy. No one seriously suggests that either the Scottish or the English legislation contains such a provision or was ever intended to do so. In both cases they deal with specific categories of old folks' housing where the provisions in Scotland are the same in substance as those south of the border.
The essence of the debate is, in effect, whether the Scottish provisions are much more tightly drawn than are the English provisions, as the Opposition suggest, or

whether, as we have always maintained, the effect has been comparable. I am happy to deal with it on that basis, because I believe that the evidence that we can put to the House substantiates what we have always said.
Since the Act came into force in Scotland there have been five applications for exemption under the Tenants' Rights, Etc. (Scotland) Amendment Act. In each case the Secretary of State refused the application by the local authority because it did not fall within the provisions of the Act. So far as we can tell, the Secretary of State for the Environment would probably have come to the same conclusion, given the kind of houses being considered. Of equal interest and importance is that, compared with the situation in Scotland, where not one of the five applications has been accepted, since the coming into effect of the English Housing Act—with far wider provisions, according to the Opposition—only one house in the whole of England and Wales has been excluded, and that would have been excluded in Scotland also under the Scottish provisions.
The Opposition have waxed loud and furious, saying that the Scottish terms are terribly narrow, while the English terms are wide and generous by comparison, yet in England and Wales, under the so-called very generous provisions, only one house has been excluded, which would have been excluded under the Scottish provisions in any case. On that basis, their arguments are bogus and do not stand up to examination. They may protest as much as they like, but the evidence so far—and that is all that we can go on—is that their protestations are without foundation.

Mr. Millan: The hon. Gentleman will not get away with that. What he has said is absolutely irrelevant. He has not answered the point made by my hon. Friends and myself. How many houses in England fall within the definition? The figures for exemptions were given by Ministers as more than 200,000. Is that accurate? He was also asked to comment on the equivalent figure for Scotland, which was fewer than 6,000. Is that accurate? It is perfectly accurate, because he gave the figure himself when he drew our attention to what was stated in the Scottish housing statistics.
If the houses are exempted from the provisions, there is no right to buy. I imagine that any local authority receiving an application from a tenant to buy a house which is exempted under the terms of the Act will simply tell the tenant that it is not eligible to be sold. Therefore, the vast majority of such cases will not be referred to the Secretary of State at all. The only reference to the Secretary of State is when a tenant wishes to buy a house for which exemption has been granted and persists in his wish. Therefore, the number of references in England and Scotland is irrelevant to the number exempted by the provisions of the legislation.
If the Minister intends to rise, I ask him to answer the direct question that I have put to him twice. Is the effect of the English legislation to exempt or exclude 220,000 houses in England and Wales while the Scottish legislation exempts or excludes only 6,000 houses in Scotland? Is that accurate or not?

Mr. Rifkind: As the right hon. Gentleman knows, the figures given for England and Wales are estimates. They were described as estimates in the last debate, and I therefore have nothing to add. He is quite wrong to say that


in England and Wales the Secretary of State is not involved. If a local authority wishes to take advantage of the English provisions, it must be confirmed by the Secretary of State for the Environment. If only one house has so far been excluded under the English provisions, that is because, despite whatever larger numbers might be considered eligible, only one was in fact excluded. On exactly the same approach, that house would have been excluded in Scotland. It is not the Government's fault if the city of Glasgow authority has built no houses over the last 50 years which fall within the category of amenity housing.

Mr. Millan: The Minister is making another speech, but has not answered my point. He has admitted that 220,000 houses are covered by the English legislation and less than 6,000 by the Scottish legislation. There is no way in which those figures are comparable. The discrepancies arise because of the more restrictive definition in the Scottish legislation and the more liberal definition in the English legislation.
If the Minister argues that there is no difference, he can accept the new clause. It would put into the Scottish legislation exactly the same definition as is in the English legislation. If there is no difference in effect, there is no reason why the new clause should not be accepted. It would then be absolutely clear that the English and Scottish legislation said exactly the same things.
The number of references to the Secretary of State is not relevant. In any case, it is early days yet. But even that is not the point. Sheltered housing is excluded from the right-to-buy definitions in both the Scottish and English legislation. If amenity housing or housing for the elderly were excluded, anyone wishing to buy such a house would simply be told by the local authority that he had no right to buy. If, despite that advice, the individual wished to press the right to buy, the local authority would only then have to apply to the Secretary of State for exemption. However, the vast majority of cases would never reach the Secretary of State, because it would be crystal clear from the legislation that there was no right to buy and that a tenant would be wasting his time trying to persuade the local authority that he had a right to buy.
What the Minister has said has been typical of the dishonesty with which the Government have approached this matter. He has not answered any of the points put to him. He has tried to obscure the issue by introducing the red herring of comparing the English and Scottish experiences. The new clause would insert in the Scottish legislation exactly the same words as are contained in the English legislation. If the hon. Gentleman had any shred of honesty, he would welcome the new clause. As obviously he is not prepared to do so, I ask my hon. Friends to vote for it in the Lobby.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 116, Noes 162.

Division No. 114]
[9.18 pm


AYES


Adams, Allen
Callaghan, Jim (Midd't'n &amp; P)


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Campbell, Ian


Ashton, Joe
Canavan, Dennis


Beith, A.J.
Carmichael, Neil


Booth, Rt Hon Albert
Clark, Dr David (S Shields)


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Cocks, Rt Hon M. (B'stol S)


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Cook, Robin F.





Cowans, Harry
Maclennan, Robert


Craigen, J. M.
McNamara, Kevin


Crawshaw, Richard
McTaggart, Robert


Cryer, Bob
McWilliam, John


Dalyell, Tam
Marshall, D(G'gowS'ton)


Davidson, Arthur
Mason, Rt Hon Roy


Davis, T. (B'ham, Stechf'd)
Maxton, John


Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
Maynard, Miss Joan


Dempsey, James
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce


Dewar, Donald
Mitchell, R. C. (Soton Itchen)


Dixon, Donald
Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)


Dobson, Frank
Morris, Rt Hon C. (O'shaw)


Dormand, Jack
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Douglas, Dick
Morton, George


Duffy, A. E. P.
O'Neill, Martin


Eadie, Alex
Palmer, Arthur


Eastham, Ken
Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)


Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)
Prescott, John


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Roberts, Albert(Normanton)


Ford, Ben
Roper, John


Foster, Derek
Ross, Ernest (Dundee West)


Foulkes, George
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


Grant, George(Morpeth)
Sever, John


Grant, John (Islington C)
Short, Mrs Renee


Grimond, Rt Hon J.
Silverman, Julius


Hamilton, James(Bothwell)
Skinner, Dennis


Hamilton, W. W. (C'tral Fife)
Snape, Peter


Hardy, Peter
Soley, Clive


Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Spearing, Nigel


Haynes, Frank
Stallard, A. W.


Hogg, N. (EDunb't'nshire)
Steel, Rt Hon David


HomeRobertson, John
Stewart, Rt Hon D. (W Isles)


Hooley, Frank
Stoddart, David


Howell, Rt Hon D.
Stott, Roger


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Strang, Gavin


Janner, HonGreville
Thomas, Dafydd(Merioneth)


John, Brynmor
Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)


Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Wainwright, E.(DearneV,)


Jones, Barry (East Flint)
Wainwright, R (ColneV)


Kilfedder, James A.
Weetch, Ken


Lambie, David
Welsh, Michael


Lamond, James
White, Frank R.


Leadbitter, Ted
White, J. (G'gowPollok)


Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Wigley. Dafydd


Litherland, Robert
Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)


Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Wilson, William (C'try SE)


McCartney, Hugh
Winnick, David


McDonald, DrOonagh
Woolmer, Kenneth


McGuire, Michael (Ince)



McKay, Allen (Penistone)
Tellers for the Ayes:


McKelvey, William
Mr. James Tinn and


MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor
Mr. Donald Coleman.




NOES


Alexander, Richard
Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)


Ancram, Michael
Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)


Atkins, Robert(Preston N)
Cockeram, Eric


Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)
Colvin, Michael


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Cope, John


Bendall, Vivian
Corrie, John


Benyon, Thomas (A 'don)
Cranborne, Viscount


Berry, Hon Anthony
Crouch, David


Best, Keith
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.


Bevan, David Gilroy
Dover, Denshore


Biggs-Davison, John
Dunn. Robert(Dartford)


Blackburn. John
Dykes, Hugh


Bonsor, SirNicholas
Fairbairn, Nicholas


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Fairgrieve, Russell


Braine, SirBernard
Fenner, Mrs Peggy


Bright, Graham
Fisher, Sir Nigel


Brinton, Tim
Fletcher, A. (Ed'nb'gh N)


Brooke, Hon Peter
Fletcher-Cooke, SirCharles


Brotherton, Michael
Fookes, Miss Janet


Budgen, Nick
Fowler, Rt Hon Norman


Cadbury, Jocelyn
Fraser, Peter (South Angus)


Carlisle, John (LutonWest)
Goodlad, Alastair


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Gorst, John


Chalker, Mrs. Lynda
Gray, Hamish


Chapman, Sydney
Greenway, Harry


Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th, S'n)
Griffiths, Peter Portsm'th N)






Grist, Ian
Parris,Matthew


Grylls, Michael
Pattie,Geoffrey


Gummer, JohnSelwyn
Percival, Sir Ian


Hamilton, Michael(Salisbury)
Peyton, Rt Hon John


Haselhurst, Alan
Pollock, Alexander


Hawkins, Paul
Prentice, Rt Hon Reg


Hawksley,Warren
Proctor, K. Harvey


Hayhoe, Barney
Raison, Timothy


Heddle, John
Rathbone, Tim


Henderson, Barry
Ronton, Tim


Hill, James
Rhodes James, Robert


Hogg, HonDouglas(Gr'th'm)
RhysWilliams, SirBrandon


Hordern, Peter
Rifkind, Malcolm


Howell, Ralph (NNorfolk)
Roberts, M. (Cardiff NW)


Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
Rossi, Hugh


Hurd, Hon Douglas
Rost, Peter


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy


King, Rt Hon Tom
Scott, Nicholas


Knight, MrsJill
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Knox, David
Skeet, T. H. H.


Lang, Ian
Speller, Tony


Lawrence, Ivan
Spence, John


LeMarchant, Spencer
Spicer, Jim (West Dorset)


Lester Jim (Beeston)
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Sproat,Iain


Lyell, Nicholas
Squire,Robin


Macfarlane, Neil
Stainton, Keith


MacGregor, John
Stanbrook, Ivor


MacKay, John (Argyll)
Steen, Anthony


McNair-Wilson,M.(N'bury)
Stewart, A. (ERenfrewshire)


McQuarrie, Albert
Stradling Thomas,J.


Major, John
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Marlow, Tony
Temple-Morris, Peter


Marten,Neil (Banbury)
Thomas, Rt Hon Peter


Mather.Carol
Thorne, Neil (IlfordSouth)


Maude, Rt Hon Sir Angus
Thornton,Malcolm


Mawby, Ray
Townend,John(Bridlilngton)


Mawhinney, DrBrian
Townsend, Cyril D,(B'heath)


Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Trippier,David


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Viggers, Peter


Miller,Hal(B'grove)
Waddington,David


Mills, lain (Meriden)
Wakeham, John


Mills, Peter (West Devon)
Walker, B. (Perth)


Moate, Roger
Waller, Gary


Monro, Hector
Ward, John


Morgan, Geraint
Watson, John


Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Mudd, David
Wheeler, John


Murphy, Christopher
Wickenden, Keith


Myles, David
Williams, D.(Montgomery)


Neale, Gerrard
Wolfson, Mark


Needham, Richard
Younger, Rt Hon George


Nelson, Anthony



Neubert, Michael
Tellers for the Noes:


Normanton, Tom
Mr. Tony Newton and


Page, Rt Hon Sir G. (Crosby)
Mr. Donald Thompson.


Page, Richard (SW Herts)

Question accordingly negatived.

Orders of the Day — New clause 8

CALCULATION OF THE AGGREGATE RELEVANT INCOME FOR HOUSING SUPPORT PURPOSES

`In section 1 of the Housing (Financial Provisions) (Scotland) Act 1978, the following subsection is inserted after subsection (3)—
(3A) The aggregate amount of relevant income for the purposes of paragraph (b) of subsection (2) above for any year shall not be estimated by the Secretary of State at an amount greater than the relevant income estimated for the previous year adjusted to take account of the information available to him as to changes in the general level of earnings for the year".'. [Mr. Millan.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Millan: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
This is an important new clause whose passing would have considerable consequences. That is why we are attempting to insert it in the Bill. It is necessary for me briefly to explain a little of the background.
The Housing (Financial Provisions) (Scotland) Act 1978 introduced a new system of housing subsidies in Scotland. The housing support grant is a deficit subsidy. The Secretary of State, in determining housing support grant, makes an estimate of what might be the reasonable income of a local authority in terms of rent and rate funds contributions. He then sets against that the estimates of what the expenditure might be by the local authorities on a reasonable standard basis. [Interruption.] I hope that my hon. Friends will allow me to explain. In addition, I hope that the hon. Member for Argyll (Mr. MacKay) will support the new clause, as he is obviously keenly interested in it.
The housing support grant is the difference between estimated income and estimated expenditure. It follows that the level of grant and its fairness largely depends on what the Secretary of State considers to be a reasonable income. To a considerable extent, reasonable expenditure is geared to the actual expenditure of local authorities on loan charges, maintenance and so on.
9.30 pm
In determining the overall level of housing support grant and the amount of housing support grant to be given to any authority, the key factor is the estimate of the income of local authorities, both in general and in particular, in any one year. When the 1978 Bill was enacted, the system had the full agreement of local authorities on the basis that Secretaries of State would behave reasonably. Section 1(3) of the 1978 Act stated that in calculating estimated income for the year the Government would take account of the latest information available to the Secretary of State
as to changes in the general level of earnings which would affect the amount of relevant income which could reasonably be expected for that year.
That provision was an indication of the sensible way in which it was anticipated that Secretaries of State would behave. In simple language, it means that the Secretary of State would assume that rent and rate fund contributions towards housing, taken together, would increase roughly in line with the general rate of inflation or, more accurately, with the general increase in the level of earnings.
When I was Secretary of State I gave those assurances to local authorities. In assuming the income for a forthcoming year, I said that I would take account of the likely rise in earnings in that year and that the rent and rate fund income would rise accordingly. I accepted that it would not necessarily work out accurately, but that it would be roughly in line with expectations for earnings. That was done in the one year for which the Labour Government were responsible for the housing support grant. We assumed that, taken together, the rent and rates would increase by only about 5 per cent. A most generous housing support grant was paid to local authorities.
It was only on the basis of those assurances that local authorities agreed to the new system. Under this Government the system has been utterly abused. The Government assume that rents will increase by between 30 and 40 per cent. a year. In 1980–81 the Government assumed that rents would rise by over 30 per cent. In 1981–82 they assumed a rent increase of about 40 per cent.


Give those assumptions the amount of housing support grant has been savagely reduced. In 1981–82, the housing support grant in Scotland was reduced to £140 million. In 1980–81 it amounted to £229 million. That means a reduction of about £100 for every local authority house in Scotland.
If hon. Members want to know why there have been large rate increases in many Scottish districts, they need look no further than the savage reduction in the housing support grant. Many authorities have refused to increase rents. In my view, authorities have considerable justification for taking that decision. They have refused to put up rents by 40 per cent. Of course, if they do not increase rents, given the reductions in the housing support grant which affect different authorities in different ways, there will be a considerable increase in the rate burden.
The system has been abused by the Government, despite the undertakings given to the local authorities by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Provan (Mr. Brown) and I. It has been used in a thoroughly dishonest way to reduce the housing support grant and to force up rents and rates in Scotland.
The new clause seeks to put into the 1978 Act the intention that we then had, but to do it in an explicit way and to discharge the promises made by the Labour Government. In effect, it would provide that in estimating the amount of relevant income for the purposes of the housing support grant the Secretary of State would not assume rent and rate increases any greater than changes in the general level of earnings for the year. If earnings were assumed or estimated to go up by 10 per cent., rents and rate fund contributions would be assumed to go up by no more than 10 per cent. Therefore, the Government would continue to make their fair and equitable contribution towards housing in local authorities in Scotland.
As the hour is late, I do not wish to add much more to what I have said. I repeat that the Government have distorted and abused the system. They have gone back on the undertakings given by the Labour Government when the 1978 Act was put into operation. The Act cannot remain as it is. I give notice that the next Labour Government will amend this legislation to prevent it being abused in this way.
The attempted forcing of massive rent and rate increases is accompanied by the biggest reductions that we have seen in expenditure on housing compared with any other public service in Scotland. The reductions in housing expenditure projected over the next few years in the public expenditure White Paper published on the day of the Budget are on a scale unmatched even by education and certainly not by any local authority or other service for which the Government are responsible.
Housing is bearing the most savage burden of all the cuts imposed by the Government on capital expenditure and on the level of subsidies to local authorities. There is a general attack on housing in Scotland. It will have disastrous consequences for future housing in Scotland and for the prospects of hundreds of thousands of people. Part of that attack is based on abuses of the housing support grant system. The purpose of the clause is to remedy the abuse perpetrated by the Government.

Mr. Rifkind: I listened with interest to the remarks of the right hon. Member for Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Milian). He indicated the priority that he wished to give to linking any increase in relevant income to the general

rise in earnings. The Government believe that there is a strong case for not increasing the rate fund contribution. Therefore, we are, in effect, talking about the extent to which that part of the relevant income of a local authority met by rents from tenants should or should not increase in line with the rise in earnings.
The right hon. Gentleman referred to the Housing (Financial Provisions) (Scotland) Act 1978, which was passed when he was Secretary of State for Scotland. He will remember that that followed from the Labour Government's Green Paper on housing. It is relevant to consider one passage in that Green Paper regarding any increases in rents. In the Green Paper the right hon. Gentleman stated:
While in the long run rents must stand in reasonable relation to costs the Government consider that local contributions to these costs should keep broadly in line over a period of years with the rise in earnings generally.
That was an interesting observation, because it indicated that there were really two considerations that the previous Government had in mind: first, the proportion that rents and relevant income generally should bear to costs; and, secondly, the linkage which, I acknowledge, the then Government wished to make with the general rise in earnings.
Relevant income now represents about 50 per cent. of costs, and as a result of the changes in the current year that will go up to about 56 per cent. There may be a perfectly legitimate debate on whether 50 per cent., 56 per cent. or some other particular percentage is appropriate, but I do not see any obvious or automatic reason why the ratio that existed two or three years ago of relevant income to costs must be considered static for all time, or somehow unchangeable, irrespective of other circumstances.
The right hon. Gentleman's Green Paper indicated that in the long run rents must stand in reasonable relation to costs. That must, in some circumstances, mean that an increase, for example in rents, may be greater than would otherwise be appropriate. In any event, the support that any Government give to housing through the housing support grant must take into account the general totality and aggregate of public expenditure by the Government and the relative priority that housing should find within that sum.
As the income of the population increases, and as people's standards of living rise, it is not unreasonable that their rent should contribute a much greater proportion to the cost of the housing that they occupy, as long as those who are unable to make a reasonable contribution are protected by the system. The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that under the existing system about 50 per cent. of Scottish tenants either pay no rent at all or have any rent increase largely met by increases in benefit. Therefore, by definition, we are talking about those who have a substantial income.

Mr. Jim Craigen: How do the Government justify increases of 30 to 40 per cent.?

Mr. Rifkind: It depends entirely on the base from which one starts. The hon. Gentleman will be the first to appreciate that if one starts from £1 and makes an increase to £2 that is an increase of 100 per cent. That will riot necessarily be unreasonable, but an increase of £50 may be only a 5 per cent. increase if one is starting from a very high base. Percentages by themselves do not take the matter very much further. I think that the hon. Gentleman recognizes that


The local authorities that have been obliged to impose a relatively high rent increase to meet the Government's capital allocation requirements are those which, almost invariably, are starting from a very low rent or a very high rate fund contribution. It is because there has been inequity in the balance up to now that they have had that problem.
The new clause would introduce a rigidity which, while it might coincide with the right hon. Gentleman's present views on what the priorities ought to be, would be undesirable. It would be unacceptable to any Government that the Secretary of State's discretion—under whichever Government, and whoever was the Secretary of State—should be hampered in this way. In the 1978 Act the right hon. Gentleman did not—although he had the power—limit his own discretion in the way that he now seeks to do. He would argue, of course, that he had no intention of using the Act in the way that it has been used. But the fact remains that if it were such a simple, straightforward matter, that would have been the time rigidly to limit the Secretary of State's discretion. The right hon. Gentleman did not think it appropriate to do that then. We do not think that it is appropriate to do that now.

Mr. Milan: The Minister has not answered the points raised. He has not justified rent increases in successive years of more than 30 per cent., and some of about 40 per cent. There has been no justification for that.
It is not just a question of redressing the balance between rents and rates. In Glasgow, for example, the reduction in housing support grant was such that the local authority felt itself obliged to impose a 31 per cent. rent increase, and at the same time it is imposing a 37½ per cent. rate increase. That is happening simply because of the reduction in grant by the Government. It is not a question of making just minor adjustments here and there and redressing the balance.
If the ratepayers felt that the big rent increases were absolving them from big rate increases, they might be rather happier about the situation. Many tenants will be getting a 6 per cent. wage increase—all that the Government allowed in the RSG for local authority workers, and basically all that they want to allow for civil servants, although perhaps that is 7 per cent. or whatever. If one tells such a person that percentages are irrelevant and that it is all right to have 7 per cent. on his salary and 30 per cent. or 40 per cent. on his rent, one will get a fairly dusty answer.
9.44 pm
Yet that is what the Government are doing. The effect of that is to drive down the standard of living of ordinary people, particularly those with low wages. They are suffering most from the cuts. The poverty trap is now operating with a vengeance. Unfortunately, there are millions of people still at work who would be better off under the Government's policy if they were not at work but on supplementary benefit. They would then receive the benefit of the rent and rate rebates which the Under-Secretary is so fond of quoting to us.
However, those at work are being asked to take a 6 per cent. or 7 per cent. wage increase—if they are in private industry, perhaps no increase. At the same time they are faced with massive rates increases of an average of 34 per cent. and rent increases of 30 per cent. in Scotland next year. That is the triumph of the Government. That is grossly unfair and is an abuse of the system introduced by the 1978 Act. It is not justified at present in Scotland. The

Government are ignoring the provisions of the 1978 Act, they are taking no account of the general level of earnings and are imposing savage rent increases.
The Minister may try to obscure the issue but the problem is well understood by those living in local authority houses in Scotland. I never imagined that I would see the day when there would be serious talk of rent strikes in Scotland. But that is happening in Glasgow and elsewhere. Large numbers of tenants are now deciding that they will not pay their increased rents. Not all of them seem to appreciate that the reason for the increased rents is the miserliness of Government, the mean housing support grant and the abuse of the 1978 system. Because the Government are determined to abuse the system, we shall press the new clause to a Division.

Mr. Maclennan: I support the new clause, though I regret that it should be necessary to table such a proposal. It was clear when the Housing (Financial Provisions) (Scotland) Act 1978 was passing through the House what was the intention with regard to the calculation of the housing support grant.
The Secretary of State at that time reached the conclusions that he put before the House after full consultation and with the agreement of the local authorities. It is unacceptable for the present Government to seek to operate a housing policy in the teeth of the opposition of the local authorities in Scotland and to pretend that the Secretary of State of that day should have foreseen that a policy would be pursued which was utterly opposed to the interests of the local authorities.
As the provisions are being operated, the housing subsidy is being savagely cut and housing programmes are being slashed throughout Scotland. We are seeing inequitable provisions on rents introduced as a means of trying to increase housing programmes. That is wholly inequitable and unacceptable. The notion proposed in the new clause seems to me to attempt to redress the balance. It is not desirable that inflexibility should be introduced into the calculation of the housing subsidy. It is far better to seek to achieve the objective which the right hon. Member for Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Millan) proposes—spelt out in the Green Paper to which the Under-Secretary has referred—a balancing between the approximation of rents in relation to costs and to the increases in inflation. All attempt at balance has gone and the Government are allowing rents to play a major part in a regressive development which hits hard at those least able to afford it. It also hits the less-well-off members of the community through the cuts in housing subsidy. The policy is utterly deplorable and is supported by virtually no local authority.
In my constituency, the Caithness district council has not built a single house in the current financial year and it will not be able to build any next year. Housing programmes are being cut to the bone and places that have had no waiting lists are seeing them grow. Young people are particularly adversely affected. The Government's attitude is deplorably inflexible and doctrinaire. It will be opposed tooth and nail by all those who do not subscribe to the partisan views of the Conservative Party.

Mr. Hugh D. Brown: The Minister was at his worst when replying to the new clause. He used a quotation from the Green Paper which does not justify the Government's


housing policy. In a sense, the Green Paper is like the Bible. If one wants a quotation to support a case, one can probably find it somewhere. However, the Minister should have quoted it in context.
No one can look at the problems of housing and rents without relating them to the cost of providing the services. That is a statement of the obvious. It has nothing to do with the determination of rent levels, and the Minister misled the House by making a quotation out of context.
We regret the need to move such new clauses. The basis of the 1978 Act was one of being reasonable and taking local authorities along with us. My hon. Friend the Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Lambie) never voted for anything that I proposed on housing, but it was not the principle of the Act that was wrong. Now it is the lack of support from the Government that is at fault. The attack is on the Government, not on the legislation that they are trying to use. The Government have reduced the level of support to such an extent that they no longer have a housing policy.
The Minister was also grossly unfair in his references to Glasgow and to Dundee district council, which are held up as rascals in Scotland. In fact, neither has cheap rents or anything but below-average rate contributions.

Mr. Rifkind: Rubbish.

Mr. Brown: Where do those councils stand in the league tables of rent levels and rate contributions?

Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Gentleman must be aware that Glasgow has by far the highest rate fund contributions of any local authority in Scotland.

Mr. Ernie Ross: What about Dundee?

Mr. Brown: By the Government's standards, those councils are by no means the worst authorities. Is the Minister saying that their local contributions—rents and rates—are the worst in Scotland from the Government's point of view?

Mr. Ross: My hon. Friend may be interested to know that Dundee is sixteenth in the league table.

Mr. Brown: That shows that once again the Minister has been selective in his use of figures.
If the new clause is rigid, it is only because the Government are attempting to dismantle some sound legislation in order that they may cut the support to local authorities. They seem to have an obsession about attacking council tenants. I wish that Conservative Members would come to my constituency to see some of the problems in the big housing estates. Even in Glasgow there are unsatisfactory houses that are known to have problems of dampness and, in some cases, dangerous wiring. There is talk that work on remedying these problems cannot be completed until the next century. That shows the acuteness of the housing problem facing some authorities. Not all of them are spendthrift and profligate.
The Government have no housing policy. They are vindictive against council tenants. They are trying to do everything possible to make it a more attractive proposition financially to buy council houses. I wish that they would be more honest in stating their case.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—

The House divided, Ayes 116, Noes 160.

Division No. 115]
[9.55pm


AYES


Adams, Allen
Lamond, James


Alton, David
Leadbitter, Ted


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)


Ashton, Joe
Litherland, Robert 


Beith, A, J.
Lofthouse, Geoffrey


Booth, Rt Hon Albert 
McCartney, Hugh


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
McDonald, DrOonagh


Bray, Dr Jeremy
McGuire, Michael(Ince)


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
McKelvey, William


Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)
MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor


Callaghan, Jim (Midd't'n &amp;P)
Maclennan, Robert 


Campbell, Ian
McNamara, Kevin


Campbell-Savours, Dale
McTaggart, Robert 


Canavan, Dennis
McWilliam, John


Carmichael, Neil
Marshall, D (G'gowS'ton)


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Mason, Rt Hon Roy


Cocks, Rt Hon M. (B'stol S)
Maxton, John


Coleman, Donald
Maynard, Miss Joan


Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce


Cook, Robin F.
Mitchell, R. C. (Soton Itchen)


Cowans, Harry
Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)


Craigen, J. M.
Morris, Rt Hon C. (O'shaw)


Crawshaw, Richard
Morton, George


Cryer, Bob
O'Neill, Martin


Dalyell, Tam
Palmer, Arthur


Davidson, Arthur
Pavitt, Laurie


Davis, T. (B'ham, Stechf'd)
Powell, Raymond(Ogmore)


Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
Prescott, John


Dempsey, James
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Dewar, Donald
Roper, John


Dixon, Donald
Ross, Ernest (Dundee West)


Dobson, Frank
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


Dormand, Jack
Sever, John


Douglas, Dick
Short, Mrs Renée


Duffy, A. E. P.
Skinner, Dennis


Eadie, Alex
Snape, Peter


Eastham, Ken
Soley, Clive


Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)
Spearing, Nigel


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Stallard, A. W.


Ford, Ben
Steel, Rt Hon David


Foster, Derek
Stewart, Rt Hon D. (W Isles)


Foulkes, George
Stoddart, David


Grant, George (Morpeth)
Stott, Roger


Grimond, Rt Hon J.
Strang, Gavin


Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Thomas, Dafydd(Merioneth)


Hamilton, W, W. (C'tral Fife)
Tinn, James


Hardy, Peter
Wainwright, E. (DearneV)


Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Wainwright, R.(ColneV)


Haynes, Frank
Weetch, Ken


Hogg, N. (EDunb't'nshire)
Welsh, Michael


HomeRobert son, John
White, J. (G'gowPollok)


Hooley, Frank
Wigley, Dafydd


Howell, Rt Hon D.
Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Winnick, David


Janner, Hon Greville
Woolmer, Kenneth


John, Brynmor



Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Jones, Barry (East Flint)
Mr. Frank R. White and


Kilfedder, James A.
Mr. Allen McKay.


Lambie, David





NOES


Alexander, Richard
Bright, Graham


Ancram, Michael
Brinton, Tim


Atkins, Robert (PrestonN)
Brooke, Hon Peter


Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)
Brotherton, Michael


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Budgen, Nick


Bendall, Vivian
Cadbury, Jocelyn


Benyon, Thomas (A'don)
Carlisle, John (Luton West)


Berry, Hon Anthony
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)


Best, Keith
Chalker, Mrs. Lynda


Bevan, DavidGilroy
Chapman, Sydney


Biggs-Davison, John
Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th, S'n)


Blackburn, John
Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Clarke, Kenneth (Rushclirfe)


Braine, Sir Bernard
Cockeram, Eric






Colvin, Michael
Knox, David


Cope, John
Lang, Ian


Corrie, John
Lawrence, Ivan


Cranborne, Viscount
LeMarchant, Spencer


Crouch, David
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Douglas-Hamilton, LordJ.
Lester Jim (Beeston)


Dover, Denshore
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Dunn, Robert (Dartford)
Lyell, Nicholas


Dykes, Hugh
Macfarlane, Neil


Fairbairn, Nicholas
MacGregor, John


Fairgrieve, Russell
MacKay, John (Argyll)


Fenner, Mrs Peggy
McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)


Fisher, Sir Nigel
McQuarrie, Albert


Fletcher, A. (Ed'nb'gh N)
Major, John


Fletcher-Cooke, Sir Charles
Marlow, Tony


Fookes, Miss Janet
Mather, Carol


Fowler, Rt Hon Norman
Maude, Rt Hon Sir Angus


Fraser, Peter (South Angus)
Mawby, Ray


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Gorst, John
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Gray, Hamish
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Greenway, Harry
Miller, Hal(B'grove)


Griffiths, PeterPortsm 'thN)
Mills, Iain (Meriden)


Grist, Ian
Moate, Roger


Grylls, Michael
Monro, Hector


Gummer, JohnSelwyn
Morgan, Geraint


Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)


Hannam, John
Mudd, David


Haselhurst, Alan
Murphy, Christopher


Hawkins, Paul
Myles, David


Hawksley, Warren
Neale, Gerrard


Hayhoe, Barney
Needham, Richard


Heddle, John
Nelson, Anthony


Henderson, Barry
Neubert, Michael


Hill, James
Newton, Tony


Hogg, Hon Douglas(Gr'th'm)
Normanton, Tom


Hordern, Peter
Page, Rt Hon Sir G. (Crosby)


Hunt, John(Ravensbourne)
Page, Richard (SW Herts)


Hurd, Hon Douglas
Parris, Matthew


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Pattie, Geoffrey


Kaberry, Sir Donald
Percival, Sir Ian


King, Rt Hon Tom
Peyton, Rt Hon John


Knight, MrsJill
Pollock, Alexander





Prentice, Rt Hon Reg
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Proctor, K. Harvey
Temple-Morris, Peter


Raison, Timothy
Thomas, Rt Hon Peter


Rathbone, Tim
Thompson, Donald


Renton, Tim
Thorne, Neil (IlfordSouth)


Rhodes James, Robert
Thornton, Malcolm


Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Townend, John (Bridlilngton)


Rifkind, Malcolm
Trippier, David


Roberts, M. (Cardiff NW)
Viggers, Peter


Rossi, Hugh
Waddington, David


Rost, Peter
Wakeham, John


Sainsbury, Hon Timothy
Walker, B. (Perth)


Scott, Nicholas
Waller, Gary


Sever, John
Ward, John


Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Watson, John


Skeet, T. H. H.
Wells, John(Maidstone)


Speller, Tony
Wheeler, John


Spence, John
Wickenden, Keith


Spicer, Jim (West Dorset)
Williams, D. (Montgomery)


Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)
Wolfson, Mark


Sproat, Iain
Younger, Rt Hon George


Squire, Robin



Stainton, Keith
Tellers for the Noes:


Stanbrook, Ivor
Mr. Robert Boscawen and


Stewart, A. (ERenfrewshire)
Mr. Alastair Goodlad.


StradlingThomas, J.

Question accordingly negatived.

It being after Ten o'clock, further consideration of the Bill stood adjourned.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,
That, at this day's sitting, the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Scotland Bill may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour and the motion relating to National Health Service (Scotland) may be proceeded with, though opposed, until half past Eleven o'clock or for one and a half hours after it has been entered upon, whichever is the later. —[Mr. Mather.]

Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Bill

As amended (in the Standing Committee), again considered.

Orders of the Day — New Clause 9

HOUSING CAPITAL ALLOWANCE

In the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973 after section 94(1) there shall be inserted the following subsection:
'(1B) So far as consent to meet capital expenses in connection with housing is concerned the Secretary of State shall not make his consent under subsection (1) above dependent on any decision by a local authority relating to its housing revenue account.'."—[Mr. Dewar.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Dewar: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bernard Weatherill): With this it will be convenient to take the following amendments:

No. 31, in page 10, line 14, clause 23, leave out paragraph (a).s

No. 32, in page 10, line 24, after "relates" insert—
(1C) The Secretary of State shall reimburse a local authority for any financial loss including professional fees or other expenses arising directly from any withdrawal or variation of consent in terms of section (1B) above.".

No. 33, in page 10, leave out lines 29 and 30.

Mr. Dewar: I recognise that we have been a long time a' travelling during the evening. However, this is an issue of substance and principle, and I make no apology for detaining the House briefly.
Those of us who are survivors of the Bill's consideration in Committee are a little sad and weary. However, there are areas of the Government's housing policy that arouse real anger in every one of my right hon. and hon. Friends. The decision to link housing capital allowances with the level of rents is one such area. It is an extraordinary proposition that the allowance that is allocated to a local authority should be conditional upon the level of rents which is imposed on the authority's tenants.
I recognise that the Government are entitled to reach a judgment on how much in any one year can be spent on housing and what proportion of that sum will be in the housing capital allowance. All Governments are entitled to reach that judgment. To some extent it is bound to be an arbitrary judgment. We had an interesting and adequate explanation of the procedure and the approach to these problems in the evidence taken by the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs, which is chaired by my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes), in January. I commend the evidence as an extremely rewarding read for anyone who is interested in the mechanics of the operation. I should declare an interest as an ex-chairman of the Committee. However, it is the operation of information-gathering that Select Committees can undertake admirably and usefully.
I accept that the housing capital allowance total is bound to be determined by a political decision, and to that extent it is arbitrary and conditioned by factors that may have little to do with the nation's housing needs. However,

having reached that global total I think that every one of us would like to see it sliced. Everyone would like to see the amount allocated to each local authority being determined on the authority's needs.
I accept that there will never be enough money to go round. Expectations always rise to outstrip the money that is available. However, once the pot of gold is available, the Minister should distribute it on the basis of the needs of each authority and on no other principle. The complicated but necessary and important discipline of putting together housing plans has been altered by the Minister. However, he assured the Select Committee that he had no intention of abandoning it, although he was releasing many local authorities from the need to draw up a plan. He made it clear that the plans were still a vital part of the preparation for the Government's housing policy. I should have thought that that underlined the basis of need which should be at the root of housing capital allocation.
We are extremely angry and we have tabled the new clause because on this occasion and this year the Government have told local authorities what they think can be given to them on the basis of need and that that is their housing allocation. The local authorities are told that that is what the Government would like to give them if—the "if' is a monumental if. It is arbitrary and artificial. The "if' means that the local authorities will get what the Government have decided they are entitled to on the basis of need, only if they force up their rents to a figure predetermined by the Government. The Opposition maintain that that bears no relation to the social realities and the local authority tenants' ability to pay.
If the local authority does not meet that predetermined target or does not fall in line with the arbitrary whims of the Secretary of State on rent policy, it will receive, not what has been allocated on a basis of need, but a lesser figure. Earlier this evening, the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson) quoted from an article in The Scotsman. The figures it reviewed are broadly correct. It was suggested that local authorities would lose about £35 million—I would not be surprised if it were a little higher than that—of that housing capital allocation which was to be theirs, if this arbitrary and extraneous factor had not been introduced into the debate.
It is wrong in principle that the linkage should take place. It is wicked to do it in this way. I use the term "wicked" clinically. We are penalising those who live in local authority areas, who are waiting for necessary works for rehabilitation, modernisation, rewiring and a plethora of necessary maintenance for the standard of housing stock. That is being put off because of the Government's ideas about what is a reasonable level of rent.
I say this neutrally, because it is not my job to prejudge whether local authorities are acting rightly or wrongly, but it is not just a small group which has said—as Dundee said—that it will not raise rents at all, which is suffering. A large number of local authorities in Scotland have raised their rents by figures which in any normal year would be considered to be staggering, but they have still failed to reach the level demanded by the hard-hearted Government and have, therefore, forfeited housing capital allocation.
Glasgow is the key example. We have debated that matter before. Therefore, we can only sketch in the argument. In Glasgow, rents have gone up by over 30 per cent., which is a large figure when measured against any reasonable standard of inflation during the period. If we take the Government's projection for inflation in the


coming year at face value, the figure is probably three times the inflation rate. It is a higher rate of increase than is likely to be enjoyed in terms of increased earnings by those who must pay the rents.
Even at 31 per cent., Glasgow would have had to have an additional 20 per cent. before reaching the taper area and recovering some of the housing capital allowance which would be cut off from the local authority. Only if the rents were raised by above 50 per cent. would some of the £10 million or £11 million which the authority stood to lose have been retained. It is monstrous to suggest that in an area such as Glasgow, which has real problems and to which the Minister has paid lip service in his usual plausible fashion earlier this evening, 50 per cent. is a reasonable rent figure to impose on a local authority.
Glasgow has raised rents substantially. That has been controversial and has been no secret among the Opposition and my political friends there. Glasgow has tried to compromise between the Devil and the deep blue sea. Even then, the authority has fallen short of the unreasonable demands which have been made. I could give many more examples. In Aberdeen, probably £3·5 million has been sacrificed. Dundee has sacrificed £3 million. there is a substantial list of other local authorities in Scotland which have carried out similar measures.
The list of local authorities which have failed to meet the rate fund contribution criteria, which have exceeded the rate fund contributions guidelines and which are therefore at risk is substantial. It was given in a written answer on Friday 6 March, and includes Tweeddale, Inverness, Lochaber, Nairn, Skye and Lochalsh, Argyll and Bute, Bearsden and Milngavie and Inverclyde, as well as the traditional urban areas, which have for many years been electorally dominated by the Labour Party. It is wrong that we should have wholesale slaughter of housing capital allowances on a totally inequitable and unjust basis.
10.15 pm
I referred a few moments ago to the rewiring needed. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mr. Craigen) mentioned the matter earlier this evening. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) and anyone who represents a Glasgow seat can give score upon score of examples of areas where there is not only genuine public discontent but also anxiety about safety and living standards, because we cannot even catch up with the backlog of work to preserve the housing stock. I am not talking about making progress but merely of preventing further deterioration.
Another recent written answer showed that 66,595 houses in Scotland still lack a sink or watercloset. Statistics can be easily bandied about, but one has only to see what is happening, not only in the big cities but in urban areas, to realise how wrong it is to cut back on the housing capital allowance by an artificial linkage to the general level of rents.
On the latest figures, 47,597 people whose last work was in the construction industry are unemployed—25·5 per cent. of the construction industry labour force. The cuts will worsen the situation. The knock-on effect on the construction industry will be substantial. By forcing up rents in a wrongful way, the Government will push even more people on to rebate, when already close on 250,000

are in receipt of it. The effect of the legislation will be disastrous and will be deeply resented throughout Scotland.
We object not only to the effects of the legislation but to the philosophical basis of the linkage. Given that there will be a scarcity of resources, what is there should be distributed on the basis of need. Distribution should not be linked to a narrow, ideological, political point—a preconception about the proper level of rents, such as the Under-Secretary of State demonstrated in recent debates. The hon. Gentleman made it clear in the housing support grant debate only a few weeks ago that his social judgment was that rents in Scotland were too low. He gave a long and sophisticated justification, touching on how much the average Scot spends on alcohol, cigarettes, and so on. The clear implication was that it was not only financial necessity which was forcing up rents but also the hon. Gentleman's social ideals and view of what is desirable.
The rent levels being enforced will cause genuine hardship and force many families to the brink of real poverty. Not only are the Government doing that. At the same time, in a bold, imaginative but totally wrongheaded sweep, they are ensuring that the same people suffer from the cutbacks in maintenance, rehabilitation, modernisation and new-build. That is a superlative example of the Government managing to get everything wrong and to achieve the worst of both worlds. As a protest against the policies, and to try to prevent that from happening, we have put down the new clause.

Mr. Robert Hughes: When one considers the record of the Government and their relationship with local authorities generally, it takes a gigantic feat of memory to recall what was said by present Ministers at the last general election. Running through their speeches and through the Conservative Party manifesto, including the manifesto for Scotland, were fine-sounding phrases to the effect that the balance had changed dramatically towards the State and that the time had come to roll back the frontiers of centralism, to allow people more control over their own affairs and to stimulate and establish local initiative.
Yet we find that in their actions towards local authorities, this Government have done more than any other to centralise Government control at New St. Andrew's House. It is a total negation of their whole philosophy. The balance between local authority and State has tilted, not away from the position at the last election but more and more towards the State. The Government are more and more arrogating to themselves—sometimes without much basis in statute—the authority to do what they wish in terms of political will. I believe that they have done more than any other Government to destroy relationships with local government and to destroy belief in government itself. In my view, they have abused the law in a gross way.
I can understand Ministers saying—although I do not agree with them—that the Government have only so much money to spend—that this is how they want to share it out, with so much for housing, and so on, and that this is the maximum that they as a Government will make available for housing. Everyone understands that. But to go further and to penalise local authorities for not carrying out the political will of the Government is grotesque.
I say that because the Government are taking the coward's way out. There is no necessity for them to act in the way that they do. If the Government are saying that


the balance between the level of rents and rate contribution is such that it has gone too far from the way that they wish, they have power under existing statute law to challenge the local authority. Local authorities are not free to do as they wish. They are not free of any inhibition or control by statute. I believe that under section 211(1) of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973, the Government can order a local inquiry if they, or indeed any ratepayer, believe that the local authority is acting unreasonable. There are plenty of precedents for that—Clydebank, Glasgow, Dundee, Saltcoats. One could name a whole range of authorities that have been taken to court under that kind if procedure. But the Government are not doing that. They are saying two things. They say that there is a limited amount of money available but that they will reduce that amount and give authorities even less money if they refuse to carry out the Government's political will.
When the Under-Secretary of State came before the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs to be questioned about housing capital allocation, he said—he will correct me if I misquote him—that the most important criterion used by the Government in deciding how to allocate money for capital spending in local authorities was the housing plan. He said that that was of paramount importance. He said that he approved of that system and did not wish it to be destroyed. Yet he himself is destroying it by what he is doing now.
One can see how the system of housing plans grew up. People did not see why the amount of capital spending made available to local authorities should always be based upon history. If they had been big capital spenders for five years, they received the lion's share. It was argued that, as a result of that system, some authorities with real and indeed greater housing needs than others were not receiving a fair share. The housing plan was therefore drawn up. This is an example for all of us who aspire to belong to the governing party. Having adopted on apparently reasonable and rational system, one is now afraid to do anything like that in the future because a Government will come in and completely destroy the spirit in which the discussions took place. There were some agonising discussions with the local authorities before the housing plans system was agreed to and before it was accepted that the housing plans should be the criterion for the allocation of capital spending.
The Government have now said "We have looked at the housing plans and this is how we shall share the money on the basis of need". That need is not just recognised by the local authorities, because the housing plans must have the approval of the Secretary of State. If he is dissatisfied, he can go back and say to the local authority "I do not think that you have given proper thought to the elderly, the disabled or to the mix of housing in terms of size".
Effectively, the seal of approval is given to the housing plans. By doing so, the Secretary of State is accepting that local authority housing plans are rational in terms of need. They are not based on any airy-fairy ideas or delusions of grandeur, nor on the fact that local authorities are trying to tilt the balance away from private housing to local authority housing. They are based on the needs, as the local authority perceives them, of those in the area. Yet the Secretary of State has the gall, once that is done, to go behind the law and say "Unless you increase your rents by a specific amount, you will not get the amount of money available".
We need only to look at the local authorities in our own constituencies to see how house building in Scotland will be cut back beyond anything that has happened in the past. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) referred to what appeared on the tape one evening. I believe that the president of the House Builders Federation was quoted by the Press Association as saying that last year the number of houses built was the lowest since 1025. I think he meant 1925, but, if he did mean 1025, he was not that far out.
I take as an example the local authority in the city of Aberdeen. Next year, only 29 new houses will be built there, in one of the few cities where the population is growing, and there the housing lists are getting longer. Sometimes when one uses that as the criterion for housing plans and housing capital spending, hon. Members argue that these days there is not the same need for new house building. They argue that local authorities should be more adventurous and far seeing and should try to maintain the character of their areas. They argue that, instead of bulldozing houses to the ground, they should adopt modernisation schemes.
That cannot be done under the present capital spending programme. Aberdeen is not the worst local authority in terms of modernisation. It is one of the best. Yet houses which desperately need modernisation are suffering from what architects call "condensation", which everyone else recognises as damp. There are houses in Aberdeen where so many different pipes run through the kitchen that it is like a maze. Other houses are not properly wired, and some of that wiring must be in a dangerous condition. Yet none of the necessary maintenance will be carried out, and all on the basis of political dogma. There is no other phrase for it.
I accept that the local authority sevice has been built up with the consent of the central Government and with central Government money. But the great local authority advances have often resulted from the attitude of elected councillors who have said "These are the Government's priorities and this is how much money they can spend, but we as a local authority believe that there is a greater need. We are prepared to go to the electorate, which knows that it will mean higher rates, and ask to be returned so that we can raise the extra money to carry out improvements".
I defy anyone to deny that one of the best local authorities in Britain since the war has been the old city of Aberdeen corporation. It built up the finest education services—

Mr. Norman Hogg: Hear, hear.

Mr. Hughes: I am glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Dunbartonshire, East (Mr. Hogg) has not totally abandoned the city of Aberdeen. The corporation built up marvellous education and health and welfare services, and some of the finest housing estates in the country. It did all that because it was prepared to spend' money. Those were the days when we had to face the electorate every year—not every four years as it is now. Every year we went to the people of Aberdeen with our election addresses and manifestos, telling them what we intended to do and that it would cost money. Aberdeen is traditionally one of the highest rating authorities in the country, if not the highest. Our approach was based on our willingness to provide services.
I do not know how the Government can say that they believe in democracy, in initiative and in people being elected and acting responsibly, and then strip them of any authority or dignity, and humiliate them in the process of advancing their political dogma. It is a scandal, and the Government do not seem to realise what they are doing.
Let me turn to the Under-Secretary's appearance before the Select Committee. Before anyone gets excited, let me explain that I am speaking as an individual Member of Parliament, not as Chairman of the Select Committee. People sometimes get upset if that distinction is not made. I thought that the Under-Secretary was a little shifty when he was asked to explain the grounds on which he had made the linkage. I asked him whether he had taken the advice of the Lord Advocate on whether what he was doing was consistent with the law. His answer was that we could not expect one Minister to say what consultations the Government had had.
I wish sometimes that local authorities would challenge the basis of this action. I do not believe that the Government have any right, where the law is silent, to say that silence means consent. The Government should operate on a specific statute. No one can point to any statute that gives the Secretary of State a positive right to link rents to housing capital allocation.
The Secretary of State may argue that he has complete discretion as to how much money he has available. If he simply wants to cut down the money spent on housing, he should not hide behind some bogus morality that says that rents are too low or that he is giving the authorities the option to have more money. They are not having more money. He is saying that he will reduce their money unless they comply.
It would be different if the right hon. Gentleman were using an incentive. If he were to say that he would make so many millions of pounds available for capital spending but that if the authorities wanted more he would match them pound for pound on what they could raise from rents, there might be some morality in such an approach. I do not say that I would accept that approach, but it would be a more honest policy than the one he is adopting. Local authorities are the best people to know what is best for their areas and their people.
If the Secretary of State continues as he is going, every action he takes will be to take more power into his hands and to destroy local government. It would be far better for him to bring forward next Session an abolition of local government Bill and to run local authorities as he runs health boards—appointing people locally to carry out what he wants. That would be far better than the nonsense we have now, in which the right hon. Gentleman is asking local authorities to take all the blame for what he does. It would be a much more honest system.
The Secretary of State has done more than any Minister I can think of to destroy local government, local democracy and the trust of people in politics. I know that sometimes people overplay this point. It is not simply a question whether it is the Opposition or the Government who carry the least weight. It is a question of people seriously asking themselves whether democracy has any future in this country. It is perhaps hardly surprising that people are turning to extreme solutions, because they see very reasonable actions and assumptions twisted and

turned in a paranoid way by a Government who have no right to stand at the Dispatch Box and claim that they have any support in the country for their actions.

Mr. Bill Walker: I am following the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) because, just as he showed that he had no knowledge of the porn shops in the Socialist countries of Europe, it is clear that he has little knowledge of what goes on in local authority housing in Scotland, despite his pained rhetoric about capital spending and the connection between that and the balance which has to be met as between the rents collected and the housing capital allocation.
Perth and Kinross district supports the measure fully, so it is quite wrong for the hon. Gentleman to suggest that in Scotland the local authorities do not approve of it. Perth and Kinross approves of is because it believes that it is the sensible road for housing policies.
I draw the hon. Member's attention to the fact that Labour administrations in Scotland have used council house rents to buy votes, and it is time that he woke up to that fact. In Scotland we have seen this done blatantly. People who can afford to pay economic rents have received, under Labour administrations, subsidised rents, because Labour administrations were determined to hold on to votes. Fifty per cent. of the council house tenants—this is true in Perth as in Dundee and elsewhere—receive assistance with their rents, and at least 25 per cent. of them do not pay any rent at all.

Mr. Foulkes: How can the hon. Member even purport to speak for the people of Perth when he was widely quoted in the press in that area as saying that he would vote against the Government in regard to the 20p impost on petrol but did not have the guts to do it?

Mr. Walker: That was an interesting intervention, because the hon. Gentleman will be unable to find anywhere in the local press a report to the effect that I was to vote against the 20p on petrol. I said that the Government could not count on my support, and that is what was reported. The Government did not get my support and, what is more, the Government were warned well in advance. I am not prepared to stand in this House and pretend that I am something that I am not.
With regard to Labour council properties in need of renovation and repair—

Mr. Robert Hughes: The hon. Gentleman accused me of not knowing what is happening in local government. The new clause does not deal with the grants that the Government give to local authorities. Rent is already taken into account for that. This is the Government directing local authorities as to how much housing they will build and modernise, and if they do not do what they are told in regard to raising rents, that need is destroyed.

Mr. Walker: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. The public money coming from the Government has strings attached to it, and that is what Labour Members are complaining about. It is right that strings should be attached, because Labour administrations have blatantly manipulated council rents in order to buy votes in council areas in Scotland.

Mr. Dewar: I take it that the hon. Gentleman is making a social judgment that rent levels are too low at the moment, and that it is not simply a case of financial stringency and the difficulties of the Government; even


with no financial crisis, rent levels are too low in Scotland. Is that his position and is that his party's position as he understands it?

Mr. Walker: Rent levels outside of Perth are too low—[Interruption.]—and on that point I shall conclude.

Mr. Craigen: The hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. Walker) said that rents were too low, yet earlier he seemed to take pride in the fact that, in his area, one household in four did not pay rent.
I support the new clause. Given our present housing needs, particularly in inner city areas and on housing estates, it is vital that we should accept it. No doubt the Minister will tell us about his concern for public expenditure. How does he justify the fact that the taxpayer has to pay for the one building worker in four who has been forced into unemployment? The Government have said that the cost of an unemployed person is £6,000. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) said that 47,000 building workers are unemployed. Therefore, the Government are paying out twice as much as the housing support grant for 1981–82 in supporting idleness in the construction industry.
In Glasgow, new building has come to a grinding halt. The local authority has been reviewing its current and future housing programmes. It is evident that there will be a serious shortage in the number of two-apartment dwellings in the city. That augurs ill for the housing needs of the retired and elderly. Such people are often desperate to move from three-or four-apartment accommodation into smaller and more suitable accommodation. It is clear that the city will not be able to meet its sheltered housing needs. After this debate, we shall deal with the health services in Scotland. A growing problem is the number of elderly people who require hospital accommodation. The more that can be done to develop sheltered housing policies, the more the health services will be spared increasing demands for geriatric accommodation.
There is a tremendous backlog in the modernisation of many inter-war local authority housing schemes. I refer, in particular, to the Ruchill scheme and to the 1924 Act houses in that area. The Minister will remember that last year I went to see him at the New St. Andrew's House. We discussed the Government's commitment to the Maryhill corridor project. He assured me that he would be in touch with the Scottish Special Housing Association, which I hoped would have a commitment to the project in Maryhill second only to its existing commitment to the Glasgow Eastern Area Renewal programme. As a result of the SSHA's budget cutbacks, it is being forced to hand over to Glasgow district council its programme for the modernisation of houses in Ruchill.
The town clerk depute sent me a letter in response to representations that I made about the urgency for modernisation in Ruchill. The letter states:
I … confirm that the Scottish Special Housing Association have asked the District Council to take the 524 inter-war local authority houses in Ruchill into the Council's capital programme for attention … even the alternative strategy type of improvement and repair plus tenants' grants, if applied to Ruchill, would make considerable demands on the Council's capital allocation for expenditure".
10.45 pm
The town clerk depute adds:
The Council's priorities for expenditure on housing over the next two-and-a-half to three years are presently being discussed by a sub-committee of the Housing Committee",

which will be considering these matters at a meeting on 9 April.
Two or three years have passed since a modernisation programme was mooted here. The discussions between the Glasgow district council and the SSHA over who would do the necessary work have been akin to the man on the flying trapeze. In the meantime, tenants face an increasingly intolerable situation. Rewiring is urgent and window frames need to be replaced. There are difficulties regarding dampness, although they are not confined only to this area.
I raised the problem of dampness with the Under-Secretary of State last year. I asked what Government backing would be given to Glasgow district council's programme for tackling dampness in a number of key areas in the city. I gather that the commitment ran to £1 million only, and the Minister was not prepared to designate even that sum of money. It was to come out of the general allocation to the Glasgow district council, which is considerably less than the district council maintains that it requires to stand still in terms of providing the necessary services to tenants.
My hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) asked about housing plans. My impression is that housing plans have ceased to exist for this Government. A great deal of time and effort have been poured into the preparation of these plans. People's expectations were built up, only to be dashed.
I hope that the Government recognise that they are paying a dear price for keeping the construction industry running at undercapacity. There have been articles in the press in the past fortnight commemorating or certainly recalling the blitz on Clydebank 40 years ago. Certain parts of the city of Glasgow look as if the blitz took place yesterday, because the gaps remain. It is not that the local authorities or the SSHA did not have the necessary plans. The trouble is that the Government have been cutting off the resources required by the local authorities if the plans are to reach fruition.

Mr. John Maxton: I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mr. Craigen) will not mind if I do not follow his line of argument directly. However, much of what I have to say will be in agreement with what he said.
I should like to take up some of the points made by the hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. Walker). In many ways the hon. Gentleman represents the true Tory backwoodsman. The true Tory prejudices come out when he speaks in this place.
The hon. Gentleman referred to council house rents being too low and heavily subsidised and submitted that something should be done about them. In a sense I prefer the hon. Gentleman's honest prejudice to the smooth eloquence of the Under-Secretary of State who, in doing what the hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire wants him to do, covers it up with quasi-legal and pleasant expressions.
I am glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Maryhill intervened to force the hon. Gentleman to admit that his view was that, except in Perth, council house rents are too low and that they are being subsidised by others. Yet, at the same time, the hon. Gentleman said that many people have their rents paid for them and others are in receipt of rent rebates. They do not have the income to pay the rent, That is why they get rent rebates and subsidies.
One cannot argue that rents in relation to incomes are too low, on the one hand, and then say, on the other hand, that many people get their rent paid for them. What that proves is that the incomes of too many people are so low that they cannot afford to pay even the low rents that the hon. Member mentions. He cannot have it that way.
The other point has to be made loud and clear. I can tell my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Foulkes that as an owner-occupier and mortgagor I am as heavily subsidised if not more heavily subsidised than is the average council tenant in Scotland. I get as much subsidy from the State, in tax relief on my mortgage interest payments, as the average council tenant. That point ought to be made repeatedly so that the lesson is brought home to Conservative Members.
I turn to what the Government are doing in terms of capital allocation. In the first part of the questioning of the Minister before the Select Committee, we tried to make it quite clear that what mattered in terms of the capital allocation to the local authority was that authority's housing need as perceived through its housing plan. The Minister admitted that one of the reasons why the Government were doing away with the annual housing plan and moving it to every three years was that local authorities were becoming more refined and were getting better at working out and showing their needs clearly, and that therefore there as no need for an annual plan and it could be done every three years with merely amendments between plans.
Later we found out that what the Minister really meant was that, first, because of public expenditure restraints, he would be cutting even the housing need. The Minister used the example of Glasgow in discussions in the Select Committee. He said that when housing plans were submitted, authorities put in bids that were far higher than they really needed, and, therefore, they had to be reduced.
In the first year, Glasgow bid for £98 million and received £79 million. The Minister said that if that was viewed in relation to what was to be given this year, the ratio was very similar. This year, Glasgow bid for £79 million—exactly what it received three years ago. The bid was probably becoming more realistic. What did the Government do? Did they admit that that was a more realistic figure? No. It was cut to £66 million, and even then reduced still further by being linked to the rents and the rate contribution.
That is grossly unfair to Glasgow. As my hon. Friends have pointed out, what is happening in Glasgow is that we are reaching a situation in which Glasgow will no longer be able to maintain its housing stock at its present level—not improve the stock, not build new houses, not build the houses that are needed for the elderly, for single persons and for the disabled, not build for the special housing needs but simply maintain it at its existing level of repair. Glasgow just cannot do that because what is required in large areas of Glasgow, in the constituencies of Cathcart, Provan and Garscadden, all of which contain large housing schemes, is for large sums of money to be spent in redeveloping schemes in terms of housing stock and the environment. That money will not be available, if the capital allocations that the Government are laying down and the way in which they are trying to lay them down are carried through. We shall see more and more private building companies closing down. The

Government are extremely keen to support private enterprise, that was why they came into power. "We must cut public expenditure so that private enterprise can take off''. What is happening? In the private sector of the building industry company after company are going to the wall because they do not have the work to carry on. Private industry relies upon the local authority to give it work. That is another aspect of the capital allocation argument.
In Glasgow, tenants are facing higher rents and higher rates. Conservative Members must not forget that council house tenants pay rates as well as rents. Sometimes that tends to be forgotten. The tenants are facing higher rents and rates and poorer services in their housing. Many council house tenants in my constituency come from the building industry and are out of work as well. That is the vicious circle that the Government are forcing local authorities into.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) said, that is a threat to democracy. Local councillors and those who elected them are becoming disenchanted with what local government can do as the Government are increasingly taking its powers away. Legislation is going through the House which will take away from local authorities their rights to carry out certain actions. If that continues, as my hon. Friend said, the only honest thing for the Government to do is to pass a Bill to do away with local government altogether and to pass the powers into the central Stalinist State, which it seems that the Government are determined to see carried through.

Mr. Maclennan: I support the new clause moved by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar). It raises a deeply important issue of principle. I wish especially to note what was said by the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes), with which I am largely in agreement.
It is about five years since the Layfield committee on local government finance described the situation which was developing in Scotland. It is only fair to recognise that Layfield pointed out that already in 1975 there was a tendency towards much greater central control over local government finance than there was south of the border.
The report described that tendency in paragraph 67—
A larger proportion of total local authority expenditure in Scotland is capital expenditure which is subject to stringent control. Furthermore, the smaller number of local authorities in Scotland permits the Scottish Office to develop a much closer relationship with them than is possible between English government departments and local authorities.
That tendency was something that the Labour Government did nothing to reverse.

Mr. Lambie: The hon. Member was a member of that Government.

Mr. Maclennan: But Layfield pointed out the different political situation that existed in Scotland at that time. There was broadly an identity of view between local government and the central Government about what were the proper objectives for them to be pursuing. Indeed, that is brought out clearly in the report. It says:
The Scottish Office is putting itself in a position to take an overall view of the affairs of each local authority and also to ensure that the actions of its departments are properly coordinated and directed to agreed objectives.
The fundamental difference between the situation then and now is that the objectives are not agreed. The Government are acting in total defiance of local opinion in Scotland in pursuing their housing policy. This goes


wider than housing itself. It extends to the whole question of local democracy and the right of people to determine, at a local level, the priorities of expenditure.
11 pm
Admittedly, the Government have to take a broad, overall, view of what the country can afford and what can be afforded in total by local government. The Government have failed to recognise that they are building up, by their actions, the greatest resentment among people who have been elected, just as they have been elected, to do a job that they were specifically charged to do—to provide housing at rents that people can afford. That is an area that the Government are patently neglecting.
I predict that if the Government pursue this course with such scant regard for local feeling they will come gravely unstuck. People in Scotland will recoil from the drift towards the centralisation of local government finance, which was described by Layfield, and will recognise that there must be greater internal devolution of financial responsibility, the other option that Layfield put forward, and which I believe is necessary.
We cannot accept a situation that depends wholly on an identity of view between local government and the central Government for its effectiveness. If local government is to mean anything, it must mean the power to dissent on such matters as housing finance from the view of the central Government.

Mr. John Home Robertson: I have heard some silly speeches in this Chamber since I have been an hon. Member. I had thought that the Chancellor's Budget took the prize, but the right hon. and learned Gentleman has been pipped at the post by his hon. Friend the Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. Walker). It was an incredible assertion that council rents are too low everywhere except Perth.
As the House is discussing housing capital allocation on the housing revenue account, the hon. Gentleman might be interested to know that, in 1978–79, Perth and Kinross district council wanted to spend £9·7 million but was only allowed to spend £4·6 million. In 1979–80, the council had a programme costing £6·9 million but was only allowed to spend £5·1 million. In 1980–81, it reduced its programme still further. It wanted to spend £4·6 million but is being allowed to spend only £3·7 million. I should perhaps explain to the hon. Gentleman, for his benefit, that we are not talking about grants from the central Government. We are talking about the authority to borrow money.
I hope that the hon. Gentleman will explain to his constituents that they are paying far too little rent and that if they are having to wait longer for houses, this is because of the refusal of the Government, whom he so enthusiastically supports, to allow the local authority to build the houses that are needed.
I wish to endorse the comments that have been made about the arbitrary, unfair and irrational nature of the mechanism which the Government are imposing by using reductions in housing capital allocations to try to compel local authorities to increase their rents. This is a completely irrational and arbitrary system. I cite two figures as an illustration.
In order to qualify under this new scheme that the Under-Secretary has cobbled together, the Dumbarton district council will have to increase its rents during the current year by 92 per cent., while in the same year the

East Kilbride district council will not be required to put up its rents at all, according to figures provided to hon. Members by Shelter. The Minister has also seen them; they were drawn to his attention in the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs. I understood him to acknowledge then that those figures were correct.
That proves conclusively that the system is arbitrary, irrational and unfair. I therefore wholeheartedly support the proposal of my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar).

Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Member for Berwick and East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) should not pick on my hon. Friend the Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. Walker), suggesting that he knows nothing about the problems of council tenants. My hon. Friend was brought up in a council house, and probably knows more than the hon. Gentleman does about that part of the Scottish housing scene. The hon. Gentleman should hesitate before making such remarks.
The hon. Gentleman also did not pick the most appropriate example in seeking to illustrate that my hon. Friend had misled the House. He quoted the programme of Perth and Kinross district council, and suggested that its allocation for 1981–82 was far less than it had asked for. He should check his facts. If he had done so, he would have found that the council asked that its 1981–82 capital allocation should be no more than the £3·15 million on offer to it. The allocation that it has received is exactly what it asked for.

Mr. Home Robertson: rose—

Mr. Rifkind: The document that the hon. Gentleman is holding no doubt gives a different figure, but if he waits a moment he will probably find it unnecessary to intervene.
A local authority may have had a particular programme at one stage, but the hon. Gentleman should be aware that local authorities regularly revise their programmes in the light of what they decide is appropriate. The latest position is that the allocation that the council asked for happens, to be exactly what it has been given, and I am informed that it is not seeking any further allocation.
I turn to the general policy. Opposition hon. Members will be aware that there are housing expenditure limits, the concept of which means that in so far as a local authority chooses, by increasing its rate fund contribution, to increase its housing expenditure, it is inevitable that the Government find it necessary to reduce housing expenditure elsewhere. Knowing the sort of rent levels that local authorities might otherwise have fixed, we could have simply reduced the capital allocations. They would have been reduced to about 80 per cent. of the actual maximum allocations that had been indicated to local authorities. No doubt that would have avoided the need for this debate, because then we should not have been automatically linking capital allocations to local authorities' rent decisions. All that we should have done would be gratuitously and unilaterally to reduce the total maximum capital allocation by about 20 per cent.
It was because we believed that it was preferable to allow local authorities more discretion as to what their priorities were—

Mr. Robert Hughes: Patently dishonest.

Mr. Rifkind: No one tried to interupt the hon. Gentleman. If he will allow me to conclude, he can then make such derogatory comments as he chooses.
We could have simply reduced by about 20 per cent. the capital allocations of local authorities, if we had wished. We thought it more appropriate that individual local authorities should decide whether their priority was to do all within their power to get their maximum potential capital allocation or whether they believed that it was more important to keep the rents down to a certain level. That is their decision.
I am not saying that it was an easy decision. I am not saying that we offered the authorities two alternatives one of which was very attractive while the other was not. what I am suggesting is that the alternative procedure that we could have applied would have given local authorities no discretion. As it is, the discretion that we have given them has, for more than half of them, been responded to most constructively and in a way that illustrates that they prefer the discretion that we have given them to a unilateral reduction in the total capital allocation.
The hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) was anxious to have more local—

Mr. Robert Hughes: rose—

Mr. Rifkind: I shall not give way to the hon. Gentleman. He has had plenty of opportunity to acquaint the House with his views. No doubt he will be able to speak again in the debate if he catches your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am not giving way to the hon. Gentleman.
The hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland said that he was anxious to increase local choice. There are 56 housing authorities in Scotland and 28—

Mr. Hughes: rose—

Mr. Rifkind: No. I am not giving way to the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Hughes: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Rifkind: I am not giving way to the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Hughes: This is most unlike the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Rifkind: Indeed. I am glad that the hon. Gentleman concedes that.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine): Order. The hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) knows that if the Minister remains standing at the Dispatch Box he must remain in his place.

Mr. Rifkind: I was saying that 28 of the 56 housing authorities in Scotland will receive the full allocation. A further two authorities asked for less than their full provisional allocation. Therefore, about 30 of the 56 authorities will be receiving the full allocation or as much as they requested. Only 12 of the remaining authorities will receive the minimum allocation and 14 will receive an allocation between the maximum and the minimum. It is interesting that, of the 26 authorities that are not receiving their maximum allocation because of the rate fund contribution decisions that they have taken, three will receive allocations that are within £100,000 of their full allocation and a further nine will receive allocations that are more than 80 per cent. of the full allocation.
The effect of the figures is that only 14 of the 56 authorities will have an allocation that is less than the one

that they would have received if instead of introducing this system we had merely reduced the total sums available for capital allocations by about 20 per cent. That would have been the only alternative open to us. Only 14 of the 56 authorities would have been better off if we had adopted that course, while 32 would not have been better off. Most of the 14 would have been better off by only a relatively small amount.
I do not suggest that the local authorities had a pleasant alternative available to them. They were not presented with an easy option. Labour Members may not like facts, but that does not make them other than facts. If we had not introduced the system that is under discussion, we would have reduced the overall capital allocations and 32 of the 56 local authorities would not have been any better off than at present.

Mr. Maclennan: The hon. Gentleman has indicated some local discretion and cited examples of different authorities reacting in different ways. It is like offering local authorities the option of commiting suicide by giving them in one hand a revolver and in the other a cyanide capsule and telling them that their freedom of choice has been retained.

Mr. Rifkind: It is nothing remotely like that. All authorities are aware that 50 per cent. of their tenants—those on low incomes, those who are unemployed and pensioners—do not pay the rent increases that are being proposed. We know that 25 per cent. of tenants pay no rent at all and that another 25 per cent. have their rents heavily subsidised. Fully half of the remainder have a household income of more than the national average.

Mr. Foulkes: Is the Minister saying that 50 per cent. of all people have an income that is above the national average?

Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Gentleman has illustrated his own ignorance by making that remark. I do not need to expand on that any further.
The hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland must be aware that, as a consequence, the rent increases that have been imposed on a number of local authorities do not affect the poor, the unemployed or people on very low incomes.

Mr. Maxton: Does the Minister agree that the lowest take-up of any social benefit is in that area? Many people will suffer from the increases because they are not aware of rent rebates and allowances, and, even when they are, some are too proud to take advantage of them.

Mr. Rifkind: It is a curious proposition that decisions on rent, rates and so on should not be taken not because people cannot afford to pay the increases but because they may not be aware of the rebate or may not take advantage of it. We are all bound to ensure that everyone entitled to rebates claim them. It is their entitlement, and everybody should take advantage of it.
The new clause is not an appropriate approach to capital allocations. When it comes to the choice, rent decisions of local authorities are consistent with the basic interests of tenants and the general housing policy.

Mr. Robert Hughes: Before the Minister sits down—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The Minister has resumed his place.

Mr. Hughes: I thought that he had recovered from his earlier bout of ill temper and was giving way.

Mr. Dewar: It was fascinating to see the Under-Secretary of State in a petty fury. To his credit, I must say that it is not a common sight. I was also intrigued by his closing sentences. To paraphrase on what he said, local authorities which agree with him and which do what he tells them are constructive. That is a prejudiced view.
The debate has not been without interest. My hon. Friend the Member for Berwick and East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) has learnt a cardinal rule of political debate in Scotland—not to take as fact the contents of memoranda submitted by the Under-Secretary of State. He made the mistake of quoting from the Minister's submissions to the Select Committee, which immediately brought forth flagged notices from the advisers to the effect that the information was wrong.
We also discovered that the hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. Walker) is apt to proclaim the startling fact that the Government cannot count on his support. Roughly interpreted, it means that he does not have the courage of his convictions but is hoping that no one will notice—he can disguise it with a slightly dishonest form of words.
The range of my hon. Friends' reactions has underlined how deeply concerned we are about the departure in Government housing policy. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mr. Craigen) mentioned the 1924 houses in Ruchill. I, too, am familiar with the scheme. I know how upset and alarmed the people are at the demolition of not only hopes but promises given by the district council and the SSHA, acting on Government assurances.
There is no justification for the linkage. It is an infringement of local government independence and an attack on local democracy. It is also financial madness.
In a written answer to me the Under-Secretary of State reckoned that, if he had his way and rents in Scotland rose to the level that he was looking for, it would mean an increase in rent rebate expenditure of about £19 million. It is crazy logic for him to argue that he is attempting to save public expenditure, when a by-product of his prejudices will be to increase public expenditure by that amount and to force to claim rebate a substantial additional number of people over and above the 250,000 already in receipt of the concession. In almost pained horror, he told us that the alternative was "gratuitously and unilaterally" to cut the housing allowance. We had the impression that gratuitous and unilateral cuts were totally foreign to the nature of the Government. But they are happening right across housing expenditure at the moment in the most cruel and direct way.
We deeply resent this innovation and the departure from the basic principle that housing capital allowances are based on need. We reject the idea that they should be linked to the party prejudice and ideological quirks of Conservative Minister's minds in this or any other year. I have no hesitation in asking my hon. Friends to divide the House on this clause.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 85, Noes 129.

Division No. 116]
[11.20 pm


AYES


Adams, Allen
Lamond, James


Alton, David
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)


Atkinson, N, (H'gey,)
Litherland, Robert 


Beith, A, J.
McCartney, Hugh


Booth, Rt Hon Albert 
McKay, Allen (Penistone)


Bray, Dr Jeremy
McKelvey, William


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor


Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)
Maclennan, Robert 


Callaghan, Jim (Midd't'n &amp; P)
McNamara, Kevin


Campbell, Ian
McTaggart, Robert 


Campbel-Savours, Dale
McWilliam,John


Canavan, Dennis
Marshall, D (G'gowS'ton)


Carmichael, Neil
Maxton, John


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce


Cocks, Rt Hon M. (B'stol S)
Morris, Rt Hon C. (O'shaw)


Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.
Mort on, George


Cook, Robin F.
O'Neill, Mart in


Craigen, J. M.
Pavitt, Laurie


Crawshaw, Richard
Powell, Haymond (Ogmore)


Cryer, Bob
Prescott, John


Dalyell, Tam
Roper, John


Davis, T. (B'ham, Stechf'd)
Ross, Ernest (Dundee West)


Dempsey, James
Rowlands, Ted


Dewar, Donald
Sever, John


Dixon, Donald
Skinner, Dennis


Dormand, Jack
Snape, Peter


Douglas, Dick
Spearing, Nigel


Dubs, Alfred
Steel, Rt Hon David


Duffy, A. E. P.
Stewart, Rt Hon D. (W Isles)


Eadie, Alex
Strang, Gavin


Eastham, Ken
Tinn, James


Foster, Derek
Welsh, Michael


Foulkes, George
White, Frank R.


Grimond, Rt Hon J.
White, J. (G'gow Pollock)


Hamilton, W.\N. (C'tral Fife)
Whitehead, Phillip


Hardy, Peter
Wigley, Dafydd


Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Wilson, Gordon (DundeeE)


Haynes, Frank
Wilson, William (C'try SE)


Hogg, N. (EDunb't 'nshire)
Winnick, David


HomeRobert son, John
Woolmer, Kenneth


Hooley, Frank



Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Janner, Hon Greville
Mr. Joseph Dean and Mr. James Hamilton.


Johnston, Russel (inverness)



Lambie, David





NOES


Alexander,Richard
Fairgrieve,Russell


Ancram, Michael
Fletcher, A. (Ed'nb'gh N)


Atkins.Robert(Preston N)
Fletcher-Cooke.SirCharles


Beaumont-Dark,Anthony
Fowler, Rt Hon Norman


Berry, Hon Anthony
Fraser, Peter (South Angus)


Best, Keith
Garel-Jones, Tristan


Bevan, David Gilroy
Goodlad,Alastair


Biggs-Davison,John
Gorst,John


Blackburn, John
Gray, Hamish


Bonsor.SirNicholas
Greenway, Harry


Braine.SirBernard
Griffiths,Peter Portsm'thN)


Bright, Graham
Gummer, JohnSelwyn


Brinton, Tim
Hannam, John


Brooke, Hon Peter
Hawkins, Paul


Brotherton, Michael
Hawksley, Warren


Budgen, Nick
Henderson, Barry


Carlisle, John (LutonWest)
Hurd, HonDouglas


Carlisle.Kenneth(Lincoln)
Jopling.RtHonMichael


Chapman,Sydney
King, Rt Hon Tom


Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th, S'n)
Knight, MrsJill


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Lang, Ian


Cockeram.Eric
LeMarchant.Spencer


Colvin, Michael
Lester Jim (Beeston)


Cope.John
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Corrie.John
Lyell,Nicholas


Crouch,David
Macfarlane, Neil


Dover, Denshore
MacGregor, John


Dunn, Robert(Dartford)
MacKay, John (Argyll)


Dykes, Hugh
McNair-Wilson,M.(N'bury)


Fairbairn,Nicholas
McQuarrie,Albert






Madel, David
Rossi, Hugh


Major, John
Rost, Peter


Marlow, Tony
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy


Marten, Neil (Banbury)
Skeet, T. H. H.


Mather, Carol
Speller, Tony


Maude, Rt Hon Sir Angus
Spicer, Jim (West Dorset)


Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Sproat, Iain


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Squire, Robin


Mills, Iain (Meriden)
Stanbrook, Ivor


Moate, Roger
Steen, Anthony


Monro, Hector
Stewart, A, (E Renfrewshire)


Morgan, Geraint
Stradling Thomas, J.


Morrison, Hon C, (Devizes)
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Mudd, David
Temple-Morris, Peter


Murphy, Christopher
Thomas, Rt Hon Peter


Myles, David
Thompson, Donald


Neale, Gerrard
Thornton, Malcolm


Needham, Richard
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Nelson, Anthony
Townsend, Cyril D, (B'heath)


Neubert, Michael
Trippier, David


Newton, Tony
Waddington, David


Normanton, Tom
Wakeham, John


Page, Rt Hon Sir G, (Crosby)
Walker, B. (Perth)


Page, Richard (SW Herts)
Waller, Gary


Parris, Matthew
Ward, John


Pattie, Geoffrey
Watson, John


Pollock, Alexander
Wells, Bowen


Proctor, K. Harvey
Wheeler, John


Raison, Timothy
Wolfson, Mark


Rathbone, Tim
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Renton, Tim
Younger, Rt Hon George


Rhodes James, Robert



Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Tellers for the Noes:


Ridley, Hon Nicholas
Lord James Douglas-Hamilton


Rifkind, Malcolm
and


Roberts, M. (Cardiff NW)
Mr. Robert Boscawen.

Question accordingly negatived.

Orders of the Day — New Clause 10

ACCESS FOR DISABLED

`In section 3 of the Building (Scotland) Act 1959, after subsection (3), there shall be inserted the following:—
(3A) Without prejudice to the generality of the preceding subsections, the Secretary of State shall lay before each House of Parliament before 31st March 1982, regulations requiring that persons providing buildings or premises to which sections (4) to (8A) inclusive of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970 apply, shall ensure that such buildings or premises comply, as is appropriate, having regard to the relevant circumstances, with the requirements of the British Standards Institution Code of Practice for Access for the disabled to buildings (BS 5810:1979), or such subsequent Code of Practice as the Secretary of State may direct.".'.—[Mr. Gordon Wilson.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Gordon Wilson: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we shall take the following Government amendments Nos. 37 and 38.

Amendment No. 39, in clause 31, page 12, line 36, at end insert
`, together with the terms of the British Standards Institution Code of Practice for Access for the disabled to buildings (BS 5810:1979) or such subsequent Code of Practice as the Secretary of State may direct. These factors shall be material considerations in terms of subsection (1) of this section, and the planning authority may impose conditions to ensure that statutory duties concerning access for the disabled are carried out'.
Amendment No. 40, in page 12, line 36, at end insert
`and

(4B) (a) In determining any application to which subsection (4A) above applies, the planning authority shall consider whether the planning permission should be subject to conditions under section (1) above, to provide access and egress for disabled persons to and from such buildings or premises.
(b) In relation to those applications to which subsection (4A) above applies, but where the local planning authority does not deem it appropriate to impose conditions under section (4B)(a) above, other than where the terms of any such conditions have already been met in the original application, it shall state on the notice granting planning permission, the reasons why such conditions have not been imposed.". '

Government amendment No. 47.

Mr. Wilson: The new clause stands in my name and that of my right hon. Friend the Member for Western Isles (Mr. Stewart). I wish to speak to amendment No. 40, which also stands in our names, and to amendment No. 39, in the name of the hon. Member for Berwick and East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson), whom I should like to thank for all the work he did in Committee on the subject of disablement. It is appropriate that the Bill should be going through the House during the International Year of Disabled People because it gives us the chance to do something practical, for Scotland at least, to help the disabled.
Two years ago and again last year I had the opportunity of going in a wheelchair through the centre of Dundee. When one does that, one becomes conversant with some of the problems that face disabled people—problems that those of us who are ambulant do not expect. For instance, in buildings one can come across slopes quite suddenly; there are narrow corridors, and one has trouble in opening doors. Sometimes one can get trapped in doorways when there in a rush of people coming in and out; and not always do people stop on, say, a busy Saturday morning in order to allow a disabled person to pass.
Again, there are such small things as being in a snack bar and ordering a coffee. The counter may be rather high. And having got the coffee, how does one manage to steer and drive the wheelchair at the same time, for it tends to zigzag—at least it does for those of us without experience?
In shops, counters are often so high that it is difficult for a disabled person in a wheelchair to see what is on display. The same height problem applies to lifts. The sign for the lift is usually in such a position that it is suitable for someone on foot but too high off the ground for a person in a wheelchair to be able to see. Thus, a person in a wheelchair can, in effect, be blind in such circumstances.
These are difficulties of a practical nature that I discovered when I was on those wheelchair visits to the centre of Dundee. They gave me a new and deepened experience of the problems confronting those who do not, unfortunately, have all the physical faculties that the rest of us have. It is against this background that I have brought forward new clause 10. The disabled in Scotland have campaigned for 10 years for recognition of the problems associated with access to buildings. That has been the main theme of representations made to us in Parliament.
Like many other hon. Members, I have received a letter from the Scottish Council for Spastics referring to the Disabled Persons (No. 2) Bill sponsored by my hon. Friend the Member for Caernarvon (Mr. Wigley). The letter says:
Its provisions, based upon the recommendations of the Silver Jubilee Committee on Access (requiring little, if any, public expenditure or bureaucratic procedures) are unremarkable in the sense that they encompass the self-evident needs of the disabled, not just a collection of desirable frills.


It goes on to say that 30 years' experience of tangible aid to the disabled has proved that they want understanding, and it thinks that some of the proposals contained in these provisions for access represent what it requires. The council says that it represents 2,000 victims of cerebral palsy in Scotland and would represent many more thousands had it the funds, and it looks to us for effective support.
I received a letter from the Brittle Bone Society, signed by Mrs. Margaret T. J. Grant, the secretary of the society. She refers to the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Berwick and East Lothian and asks for support for the amendment, saying that the reason why she requests me to do this is that both her daughter and she are confined to wheelchairs and her daughter
has been barred from Dundee college of commerce because of her condition, osteogenesis imperfecta, and because she is a fire risk.
Unless all buildings are made accessible and safe for disabled people then what hope have we of becoming integrated into society and given the chance to mix with our fellows?
Those are some of the representations that have been made to us, and I think rightly so, because our aim in this place should be to facilitate the total integration of the disabled into our everyday lives. Nothing can be so critical to this as ensuring that they have access to the buildings and premises to which non-handicapped members of the public can go.
The Silver Jubilee committee report had an appropriate title—"Can disabled people go where you go?" That report was undertaken in 1978, under the chairmanship of Mr. Peter Large, and served as a timely review of the access provisions of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970.
It is worth noting in passing that as many as 327 hon. Members have signed early-day motion 150, which calls for legislative action by the Government to implement the recommendations of the Silver Jubilee committee report. It was helpful, therefore, that the Leader of the House indicated a couple of weeks ago, on 5 March 1981, that the government are now willing to facilitate legislation on this subject. The object of our new clause and amendment is to give the Government an opportunity to carry out that pledge.
The main provision of the Silver Jubilee committee report was summarised in para 4 of its recommendations:
Legislation should be introduced to make the access sections of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970 mandatory. Further, the law should be amended to place on developers the burden of proof that to make a new building accessible would be unreasonable or impractical.
Amendment No. 39 moves towards making the provision of facilities for the disabled a matter that could be the subject of planning permission. This would be wholly welcome, in view of the present state of uncertainty amongst Scottish local authorities as to their powers in this regard.
New clause 10 deals with the other aspect of the problem that needs to be tackled if the objectives of the Silver Jubilee committee report are to be achieved, as the Government have indicated that they wish. This is the need not only to provide access to a building, by way of the doorway, a step-less entrance, a broad enough front door and a means for someone in a wheelchair to get from his vehicle to the door—which may rightly be considered as a matter for planning conditions—but for the provisions within the building to be adequate.
The new clause provides that the Secretary Of State shall bring forward building regulations, or standards based on regulations, that would embody the provisions of the British Standards Institution code of practice for access for the disabled to buildings, BS 5810: 1979, a copy of which I have here. The Government have already recognised the relevance of this code of practice since it is the one to which their amendment No. 38 refers. Our new clause, however, goes further than the Government propose, since it does exactly what the Silver Jubilee committee wanted, namely, to make such provisions mandatory wherever possible.
The matters covered by the new clause—that is, the items in the code of practice—include the width of corridors, gradients of ramps, widths of internal doors, toilet facilities for the disabled and size of lifts. The code of practice is a detailed practical working document drawn up by experts with a deep knowledge of the subject. The committee which drew up the code was chaired by Mr. Ronald Fielding, who is an architect, and it included representatives of the RIBA, the DHSS and the Department of the Environment who would, I hope, liaise with the Scottish Office. It also included voluntary organisations such as the Spastics Society and Age Concern, and Mr. Large the chairman of the Silver Jubilee committee.
I understand that the code of practice was deliberately drawn up in a way that allowed it to be translated easily into building regulations. In the Silver Jubilee committee report it is stated that the Department of the Environment in England has committed itself to considering very seriously
the idea of incorporating at least part of the new code of practice into building regulations.
That has not yet happened. Does the Scottish Office stand by a similar commitment? If so, when will it act upon it? If it is unwilling to give a firm commitment on the matter tonight, I urge the House to take the matter into its own hands and to vote the clause into the Bill. It would be pleasing for Scotland to show the way forward in the International Year of Disabled People.
If the Government say that the clause will cost money to implement, I must tell them that my understanding is that it will cost very little. They were intending in England and Wales to take powers to pass on such charges to developers, which would therefore mean no additional public spending. But if they are not doing that in Scotland—and I should like clarification on that from the Minister—the public expenditure cost would still be minimal given the requirements of the clause.

Mr. Dafydd Wigley: I am grateful to the hon. Member for giving way and for the opportunity to intervene in a Scottish debate. Does he agree that the building inspectors have to do the work in any case, checking on all the points in a new building? The additional work they would have to do in checking the additional building regulations to which the hon. Gentleman is referring would be minimal. There would be a very small cost for a very great benefit for disabled people.

Mr. Wilson: I am grateful to the hon. Member for that intervention. It is true that very little burden would be placed on public funds by the obligations under the clause because inspectors would be employed anyway, and this would be part of their duties. In the long term, the clause


would save public money. It is always cheaper to provide facilities when a building is being designed than to adapt, retro-fit and modify it at a later stage.
Amendment No. 40 is designed to meet another proposal of the Silver Jubilee committee report on access. Paragraph 4 of the recommendations, which I quoted earlier, calls for shifting on to the developers the onus of proof as to whether it is impractical to make a new building accessible. The amendment follows the same lines. First, paragraph (a) would ensure that every planning authority must consider whether to place planning conditions on a development of a building to which sections (4) to (8A) of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970 apply. It would be madatory on them to give such consideration. The planning authority may decide that it is impractical to insist on such access provisions, so in paragraph (b) we propose that when it does not insist on access to be provided for the disabled it must state on the planning permission notice why no conditions requiring access for the disabled have been imposed. In other words, we have moved the onus in a way that would require the developers to give the planning authorities good reason for not making access provision for the disabled. The wording would allow the planning authority to act as arbiters in this matter.
I commend both new clause 10 and amendment No. 40 to the House as positive contributions in the International Year of Disabled People. I urge the House not merely to pay lip service to the disabled but to put on the statute book meaningful legislation which will be of lasting practical benefit to disabled persons throughout Scotland. If we do this, perhaps we can also have the side benefit of encouraging England and Wales to follow suit.
I hope that the Government will realise that in the International Year of Disabled People they have an obligation to go further than they have so far. They have, through the Leader of the House, made a commitment, and I hope that they will take advantage of the opportunity given to them in the debate to go furthur than they have in their own amendment.

Mr. Bill Walker: We discussed this matter in Committee at some length, and there was fairly general agreement that it was a worthwhile thing to do. I am delighted that the Minister has managed to bring forward, as he said he would, an amendment. I welcome amendment No. 38. Like the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson), I have gone solo in a wheelchair. My circumstances may have been a little different from his, but the problems were the same.
It is right that disabled people should receive adequate consideration in this House, particularly in the International Year of Disabled People. But, more importantly, we should always remember that the disabled want to be treated as ordinary people. They do not want to be treated by society like lepers who have to be cared for. They want to do their own thing and to make their own way. That is why it is so important that access should be available in buildings that the disabled want to use.

Mr. Home Robertson: It is nice to be able to agree with the hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr.

Walker) for a change, and I almost feel moved to withdraw some of the unflattering remarks that I made about him earlier. However, I shall not succumb to that temptation.
I am grateful also to the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson) and to the Minister for the new clauses and amendments which have been tabled. These are appropriate and useful initiatives in the International Year of Disabled People.
My only complaint concerns the way in which the Government have drafted amendment No. 38. I welcome it as far as it goes. My complaint is that effectively it creates a procedural block which will prevent the House from voting on my amendment No. 39, which was intended to give planning authorities clear and specifically defined powers to impose access conditions when determining planning applications for public buildings. Nevertheless, I urge the Under-Secretary of State to give further consideration to the provision that I have in mind.
The question of access for the disabled is particularly relevant in 1981, the International Year of Disabled People, when attention has been focused on the needs of the disabled, and when at the same time the hopes of disabled people have been raised that something is to be done about their needs in terms of access.
The general issue of access concerns the physical difficulty of moving around when people have to rely on crutches or on a wheelchair. In order to get into your Chair, Mr. Deputy Speaker, you have had to walk up three steps. That would have been virtually impossible had you suffered from the kind of disability that I have in mind. But I am not talking about the elevated position of Speaker or Deputy Speaker of the House of Commons; I am talking about much more mundane things such as the difficulty that disabled people have in getting into the High Street branch of Woolworth's or Boots. How often people have said "But there is only one step." One step is one too many for someone in a wheelchair. That point cannot be made too often, and it is the sort of point that we are seeking to emphasise at this stage.
Section 4 of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970 imposes a duty on developers to provide access for the disabled into public buildings. However, there is no provision for enforcing that section. The hon. Member for Dundee, East referred to the recommendations of the Silver Jubilee Committee on access for the disabled. The committee stessed that it was impossible to enforce the provision. As a result of the Act, and after representations had been made, I tabled a new clause which was designed to tighten up the enforcement of that section of the Act.
In Committee the Minister responded by tabling a new clause, which is now clause 31. As far as it goes, it is helpful. It writes a reference to access for the disabled into the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act. However, my complaint is that the final sentence of clause 31 is feeble. It states:
the planning authority shall ensure that the applicant is aware of such duty.
It is well known that planners, like others, should be aware of such duties. We wish to be able to enforce that duty and to ensure that developers of public buildings carry it out.
In Committee, the Minister said that under their general planning powers planners already had the power to enforce these provisions. He undertook to issue a circular from the Scottish Office confirming that point. So far, so good. Since then, I have had an opportunity to discuss this matter further with planning authorities and with the access


committee of the Scottish Council on Disability. Those discussions led to the drafting of amendment No. 39, which stands in my name.
The amendment falls into two parts. There is a reference to "BS 5810: 1979". That deals with access inside public buildings. The Scottish Council on Disability pointed out that, as a result of the amendment accepted in Committee, access would be provided to the main door. However, as soon as the disabled person has entered the building he may be confronted with a flight of steps. Therefore, that in itself would have represented a relatively useless advance. It is important that there should be some provision to cover that, and I am delighted that the Government have taken that on board.
The second part of my amendment sought to stress the need to make the provisions enforceable. It should be possible to make them enforceable. It is not enough to have well-intentioned provisions that amount, in the end, to so much whitewash. Despite what the Minister said in Committee, it has been made clear to me in discussions since then that present legislation is not sufficiently enforceable.
Indeed, that point was drawn to my attention by Dr. Margaret Taylor, vice-chairman of the Scottish Paraplegic (Spinal Injury) Association. She may be known to the Secretary of State as she is one of his constituents. She drew my attention to the difficulties that the former Ayr borough council encountered as regards providing access to a public swimming baths. Apparently, it took six years to persuade the local authority to provide a ramp so that disabled persons could enter the building.
Dr. Taylor gave me a copy of a letter from the assistant chief constable of Strathclyde police. It is dated 29 July 1975. It states:
I have been informed by the Architect that the question of access for disabled persons was raised at the planning stage and as you rightly said in your letter of 9 July the argument was used that it was not a public building".
The letter refers to the new Ayr police station. It illustrates the difficulty that the disabled face. If it is argued that the police station is not a public building, our legislation must be full of loopholes and unenforceable.
I have also had discussions with my local authority, the Borders regional council. The master of works, Mr. McKenzie, who has recently been designated as the access officer for that council, wrote to me in the following vein:
While the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970 and Amendment Act 1976 lays a duty on developers to provide access and other facilities, there would appear to be no enforcement procedures and I see my role, therefore, as that of an adviser.
He explains how he will seek to give advice to applicants for planning permission on how to make new public buildings accessible to the disabled but makes it clear that there is no way that can be enforced.
I have also had a letter from the director of social work for the Highland regional council—the other end of the country—and he makes the same point.
Since the Committee stage I have had discussions with Mr. Graham Duncan, director of physical planning for the East Lothian district council. He referred in detail to what the Minister said in Committee. I should like to quote some of the technical points that he makes in his letter:
While I accept the Minister's assertion that there is wide scope for a Planning Authority to impose conditions on a planning consent I have always had regard in making my own recommendations to the Planning and Development Committee of East Lothian District Council to whether recommended

conditions are sustainable in an appeal situation. If in my view a condition were not sustainable it might be regarded as frivolous by either the Secretary of State or indeed by the Ombudsman.
He goes on to cite
cases where conditions have been overruled where other legislation designed to secure the same objective already exists.
Clearly, there are technical problems. Mr. Duncan refers to the circular that the Minister said he would issue, but he warns that
circulars are advisory rather than mandatory and there is substantial evidence of the Secretary of State and/or his Reporter and indeed in the last resort the Courts taking decisions contrary to advice contained within Government Planning Circulars.
Mr. Duncan concludes:
The question is really whether disabled access and facilities in premises to which the public have access is a 'material consideration' under Section 26
of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1972. That was the point that I was anxious to insert and on which we should have an opportunity to vote.
It is clear from the matters that I have cited that the Government's proposal is not watertight. There is a need for specific powers to enforce these provisions. That need is of paramount importance if we are to persuade the disabled that this is not another whitewashing exercise. Otherwise, clause 31 will be seen as another bromide for the disabled. I deplore the fact that it will not be possible to vote on my amendment. However, I am grateful to the hon. Member for Dundee, East for having introduced new clause 10 and amendment No. 40, because to some extent they cover much the same ground.

Mr. Russell Johnston: I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Berwick and East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) for the initiative that he took in Committee and the work that he did on the better treatment of the disabled and the improvement of the statutory provisions about access. On behalf of the Liberal Party, I signed his amendment No. 39. Likewise, I am happy to support new clause 10, moved by the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson).
Reference has been made to the representations that hon. Members have received from a variety of bodies representing the disabled and from local authorities. I should like to register the support expressed to me by letter by the Highland regional council, to which the hon. Member for Berwick and East Lothian also referred. I think that that council would likewise give such support to the new clause.
As the hon. Members for Dundee, East and for Berwick and East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) have already clearly set out the basic arguments for going further than the Government go in amendment No. 38, and in view of the lateness of the hour, I shall not delay the House, but I hope very much that the Government will respond to what is clearly a general view of those bodies which are engaged in the welfare of the disabled, namely, that there is a need to go further than the Government go in amendment No. 38, that what the Government are proposing falls short of what is necessary, and that, as the hon. Member for Berwick and East Lothian said, experience demonstrates, sadly, that enforcement requires some tightening.
It is not for me to say whether votes will be taken at the end of this debate. I hope that votes will not be taken, and I hope very much that it will be possible to reach


agreement on the matter and that the Government, through the Secretary of State, will respond to an argument which has been put from both sides in a very reasonable way.

12 midnight

Mr. Wigley: I intervene very briefly. I realise that this is a Scottish debate, but the issue of facilities for the disabled, particularly access for the disabled, is one that goes well beyond the bounds of Scotland or of Wales.
During this year, in my capacity as the vice-president in Wales of the International Year of Disabled People, I have written to all United Nations countries that have embassies in London, and it has been fascinating to see the replies and learn of the provisions that they make for disabled people. It is only when we read of what goes on in countries such as Sweden and many other enlightened countries that we realise how far we in Britain have to go in making adequate provision.
Amendment No. 40, in the name of the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson) deals with two of the aspects of this matter. I sat through the Committee stage on this Bill. It was apparent there that we had not got to grips with the problem, and that the solution that may be found in the Scottish context would be totally applicable in the context of England and Wales also. Section 26 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1972 is identical in this regard to section 29 of the 1971 town and country planning legislation for England and Wales. Unless there are to be totally different interpretations of identical wording, obviously the one is relevant to the other.
We have two or three separate problems here. In the debate in Committee, the Minister responded by saying "Ah yes, we have already, within the legislative framework of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1972, a form of words that allows local authorities to make planning conditions on developments of buildings to which the public might have access. They can put down a condition to ensure access"—I think that he also used the term "egress"—"for disabled people." We have incorporated that term in one of the amendments.
In checking with authorities in Scotland, I, too, have spoken to Margaret Taylor and one or two other people in Scotland on this matter. It appears that there has been very little use of this facility. Most authorities in Scotland do not appear to be aware of the provisions, as, indeed, authorities in Wales are not aware of them. Montgomery district council has told me that
the Council cannot legitimately refuse planning permission because suitable access facilities for the disabled were not provided in a building, and that also we could not impose a condition requiring such an access.
That was the interpretation of identical words, in the England and Wales context, to these words for Scotland. We have a problem in that, whatever was in the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1972, many local authorities did not realise that they had these powere.
The question may then arise whether a circular is adequate, as opposed to the legislative amendments proposed by the hon. Member for Berwick and East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson). But even if a circular were adequate, and even if the powers exist, that does not deal with the whole spectrum of problems that disabled people face in going in and out of buildings to which the

public have a right of access, and those points covered by sections (4) to (8A) inclusive of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970. That Act deals with far more than just going in and out through the door of a building, because there is not much point in doing that unless the person can get around within the building, and unless the facilities that are available for the public within the building are available to those who are, sadly, disabled.
For instance, the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act deals explicitly with sanitary provision—toilets. But that is hardly something that can be dealt with under the Town and Country Planning Acts. We have been told time and again by the various Departments—the Department of the Environment, the Scottish Office, and the Welsh Office—that town and country planning legislation is not suitable for dealing with those details within a building. That is why we need the provision of building regulations.
I quote an answer received on 29 January by the hon. Member for Eccles (Mr. Carter-Jones) from the Department of the Environment. The hon. Gentleman is a leading campaigner on the issue. The reply was:
I am considering whether the code of practice in BS 5810 should form the basis of a building regulation, but, in the meantime, it is published and available for use by architects and designers".—[Official Report, 29 January 1980; Vol. 977, c. 625]
In Scotland, in England and in Wales also we need a definitive answer. The planning legislation deals with getting in and out of a building, but we want a definitive answer on what happens inside the building.
The form of words in the new clause may not be appropriate, but I urge the Government, if they cannot accept the clause now, to table an amendment in another place to clear up the matter once and for all. We have had the report of the Silver Jubilee committee. If we are to solve the problem, let us do it in the International Year of Disabled People.
We are looking for a solution. I urge the Scottish Office to give a lead that England and Wales can follow by responding sympathetically to the clause. If the Government cannot take it on board in its entirety, I hope that they will deal with the matter in another place so that we get appropriate legislation on the statute book this year.

Mr. Younger: I am very grateful to every hon. Member who has contributed to the debate and to those who have tabled amendments on the most important aspects. I respond at once to what the hon. Member for Caernarvon (Mr. Wigley) said. He is extremely welcome to join in the debate in every way. We want to take the opportunity of the International Year of Disabled People to forward these matters in whatever way we can. If he has further thoughts or ideas that he wishes to raise at a later stage in another place, I assure him that my noble Friend will consider them with me to see whether there are further ways in which we can help.
I shall respond as positively as I can to all that has been said. I shall move as far as I can in the direction that hon. Gentlemen have asked, both in Committee and in the House.
Most logically, I shall begin with amendment No. 39 tabled by the hon. Member for Berwich and East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson). As he said, his amendment falls into two parts. The first would require planning authorities to ensure that applicants were aware not only of the provisions of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons


Act but of the British Standards Institution's code of practice on the access for the disabled to buildings. I accept the aim of that part of the amendment. I cannot accept the precise wording, although I know that he intended the amendment to be correct, but for technical reasons it is not suitable. He will have noticed that our amendment has different wording.
I assure the hon. Member that the Government amendments Nos. 37 and 38 are designed to achieve the same result as the first half of his amendment. In no sense do I criticise the first part of the amendment. We now have the proper wording but in the same form.
The second part of the amendment provides that
These factors shall be material considerations in terms of subsection (1) of this section, and the planning authority may impose conditions to ensure that statutory duties concerning access for the disabled are carried out.
I accept the object that the hon. Gentleman tries to achieve. I repeat that planning authorities already have the `powers to impose conditions concerning access for disabled people to buildings when this can be justified on planning grounds. My hon. Friend gave an example in Committee of the planning authority that had made use of conditions in this way. It is not the only example. My hon. Friend also mentioned that he would give serious consideration to the question of a circular to local authorities on this subject. I am glad tonight to give an undertaking that I shall be issuing such a circular at the earliest convenient opportunity. It will set out to clarify the position on the attachment of conditions dealing with access to buildings by disabled people.

Mr. Home Robertson: Is the Secretary of State satisfied that the conditions he and I have in mind would stand up if challenged either at an official inquiry or in a court of law? If it emerged that the provisions were not watertight, is he prepared to consider further amendment?

Mr. Younger: I appreciate the point. Access for the disabled is certainly a material consideration. My hon. Friend has stated that the Government are prepared to make it clear to planning authorities that this is so. The circular will set out to try and do that.
I accept that a circular does not have the force of law. However, it sets out the legal position as seen at the time by the Secretary of State. Although every appeal has to be considered on its merits, there must be a general presumption that the principles set out in a Government circular that were relevant to a decision would carry considerable weight. I shall be glad to look at further points if the hon. Gentleman so wishes. On the whole, I think I have gone a long way towards meeting his aim.

Mr. Russell Johnston: Is the Secretary of State basically saying that what the hon. Member for Berwick and East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) seeks in the second part of his amendment is unnecessary because these powers already exist even if they have not been applied and that they could be applied by a planning authority?

Mr. Younger: Yes, I am saying that. It is fair, however, to say to the hon. Member for Berwick and East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) that it does not go quite as far as the proposal in the second part of his amendment. However, it goes a long way. With the addition of the circular, which will be fairly strongly worded, that I propose to issue to local authorities, it will give the

necessary lead to authorities and indicate that the Government expect a response that amounts to more than passive lip service. We expect it to be taken aboard positively.

Mr. Russell Johnston: The right hon. Gentleman said that it does not go quite as far. In what way does it fall short?

Mr. Younger: The second part of the amendment of the hon. Member for Berwick and East Lothian states:
These factors shall be material considerations in terms of subsection (1) of this section, and the planning authority may impose conditions to ensure that statutory duties concerning access for the disabled are carried out.
That is all right so far as it goes. I understood from the remarks of the hon. Member for Berwick and East Lothian that he was trying to ensure that these material considerations had to be imposed in all cases. I could not go so far as that. We are going almost all the way with the hon. Gentleman. It is the case that a planning authority may impose conditions. That will be strengthened by a circular telling them that they jolly well ought to impose conditions. But the Government will not make this mandatory. Even if the hon. Gentleman wants that, I would not be prepared to go that far.

Mr. Maclennan: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way, particularly as I did not have an opportunity earlier of taking part in this important discussion. Do I understand aright that the current position in law is that the local authority may impose conditions where planning considerations justify that? If so, will the right hon. Gentleman's circular spell out what planning considerations would justify the imposition of conditions? It seems that that is central to removing the objections to the present law.

Mr. Younger: I accept what the hon. Gentleman says, but there are two separate matters here. The circular will spell out much more clearly and in harder terms what is expected of a local authority in imposing such conditions. The other half, which I have not yet come to, is the question of the building regulations and our review of them. It is in that review and any new regulations that come out of it that the details of what the conditions should include should be spelt out in technical terms.

Mr. Wigley: I am sorry to keep intervening in a Scottish debate, but is the Secretary of State aware that there have been appeals on the use of the England and Wales Act, with identical wording, and the inspector has come down against using section 29 of the Town and Country Planning Act for such purposes? Can the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that from now on, given that it is reasonable and practicable, the attitude of the Scottish Office will be not to go against local authorities that want to use the powers in this way?

Mr. Younger: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. The wording may be identical—I have not checked on that—but the hearing would come under Scottish law, and it does not always follow that what would be decided, even with identical wording, under English law would necessarily be the same under Scottish law. I am sure that my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General for Scotland will agree. If the hon.


Gentleman writes to let me know what the cases are, I shall look into them to see whether we can give him any opinion as to what the parallel position in Scotland might be.
It may be some consolation to hon. Members to know that, although it is difficult to detail everything that is happening, we have information that both Aberdeen and Glasgow, two important authorities, impose such conditions in appropriate cases as a matter of policy. I think that other local authorities also do that.
I come to the amendment of the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson), amendment No. 40, which covers some of the same ground. The point in his amendment that is substantially different is the second half, which would introduce a new provision into planning law—that planning authorities should have to explain on the grant of planning permission why they had not attached certain conditions. I see the attraction of that. It is a way of pinning an authority down as to why it has not done something, but I cannot accept the amendment as it stands.
There are a whole string of material considerations that authorities must take into account. If we once provided that an authority had to say why it had not taken a particular category of consideration into account, all sorts of consequential possibilities would arise. It would make a difficult nonsense of the planning procedure if there had to be a whole set of appendices at the end of every planning decision, saying why the authority had not considered this, that and the other.
I do not suggest that the amendment is a bad idea, but I do not think that in its present form it would be practicable to operate, without causing considerable chaos in the planning system.
The hon. Member for Dundee, East may have other ideas and he may care to pursue them in another way. He may agree that his amendment would not be workable as it stands.

Mr. Gordon Wilson: The right hon. Gentleman has said that he does not wish the Bill to include a mandatory procedure and that he would prefer to rely upon a circular and advisory guidance, for reasons that he has stipulated. Some of his objections to the mandatory procedure are taken care of in the amendment, which allows for exceptions. It provides for certain circumstances where access arrangements for the disabled could not be provided in a practicable fashion. That would allow a get-out for developers and local authorities. The right hon. Gentleman's fears about the problems attaching to reasons and exceptions are rather exaggerated.

Mr. Younger: I am not certain whether we are talking about the same thing. I do not dispute the desirability of finding ways of tying down authorities and making them obliged in every instance to include the considerations that we are discussing in their thinking. I am on a narrower point. I do not think that it would be practicable in every planning application, for developments of a certain size to require the onus of proof to be on the authority. That is going too far. If the hon. Gentleman is saying that when a planning authority is considering a planning application it should take into account all the considerations affecting access and egress for the disabled, I agree with him. All that is between us is the closely defined mandatory approach of the placing of a duty on authorities, which they have, to take these matters into account with the

powers to impose conditions, which they have, backed by a strongly worded circular to remind them, and a strengthening of the building regulations.
If the last three factors are taken together, we surely have a considerable advance on the position hitherto. I was delighted to note that the Bill introduced by the hon. Member for Caernarvon, the Disabled Persons (No. 2) Bill, took its first tentative step on Friday. Clause 31 with Government amendments Nos. 37, 28 and 47 achieve virtually the same effect as the proposals in the hon. Gentleman's Bill. I do not know whether he will fully agree with me. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman's Bill and the Bill before us will appear on the statute book before very long.
I turn to the new clause, which I have not yet referred to specifically. I do not think that we would get the best results by putting a duty on the Secretary of State to make new regulations. There is a case for extending the building standards regulations to cover the needs of the disabled. That is a complex matter that we are already working upon. We have been considering whether the British Standards code of access to buildings for the disabled should, in effect, be given the force of law by endorsement in the building standards regulations. There would be many implications if we were to take that course. We are considering whether such a step would be practicable. We are not yet able to say whether it would be practicable or whether it would achieve the best results.
Hon. Members have shown a great interest in this issue and I hope that they will feel that we are moving positively and as fast as we can to try to harden the existing provisions. It is a source of frustration to all hon. Members, and certainly those who have been here for 10 years or more, that progress has been frustratingly slow since the principal Act. The vast majority of public buildings built since 1970 have provision for the disabled, though perhaps not always as good as we should like.

Mr. Home Robertson: What about Ayr police station?

Mr. Younger: Ayr police station is another matter—and Ayr swimming baths, where the greatest problem was not access for the disabled. The baths could not be completed for many years because they kept leaking.
I hope that I have indicated to hon. Members who have rightly shown a great interest in the International Year of Disabled People that I share their desire to get things moving. In the amendments, parts of which have come about through contributions from hon. Members on the Opposition Benches, we have moved a considerable distance in the right direction. I hope, therefore, that they will accept our amendments and not press theirs.

Mr. O'Neill: When the Secretary of State rose we had some expectation that a concession would be made, because the right hon. Gentleman usually appears when a sugared pill is to be administered. He has gone some way towards meeting our points, not least those made by my hon. Friend the Member for Berwick and East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson), who deserves considerable credit. Early in Committee he brought the matter to the attention of the House. I believe that the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson) will accept that he has been more responsible than anyone for focusing attention of the problem. It is unfortunate that the Minister is not prepared to go all the way.
Since the disabled persons legislation was passed 10 or more years ago, we have had an unfortunate saga of good attempts that have failed to measure up to the requirements of the disabled. We are grateful to the Minister for the frankness with which he explains his position. Perhaps because of his frankness we are able to say that he has not gone far enough.
Amendment No. 39 effectively blocks amendment No. 38. It removes the teeth in my hon. Friend's amendment. We should like to be assured that we will see a copy of the circular before the Bill completes its journey through the other place, albeit in draft form. My hon. Friend the Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Thomas) has misgivings because of experience in other parts of the United Kingdom. If, with all-party support, the provision was amended in another place, we should be pleased.
We are disappointed that the Secretary of State has missed the opportunity to support an articulate and effective lobby, of which my hon. Friends are mouthpieces in the House. The external pressure groups will not be satisfied with what the right hon. Gentleman has said, although he has gone some way towards meeting the requirements.

Mr. Younger: It should be possible to produce a draft circular before the Bill has passed through the other place. I undertake to do my best to that end.

Mr. O'Neill: I am grateful to the Minister. I accept his undertaking not as a concession but as an act of conciliation. However, it still does not go far enough, so I ask my colleagues to support new clause 10 in the Lobby. We should make clear our commitment to the International Year of Disabled People.
While we accept that the Minister may be acting for the best of reasons, we hope that he will think again, and that when the Government have the opportunity to reconsider the matter elsewhere they will give us more than he has been prepared to concede today. We can only say that once again, an opportunity has been missed, and it seems that perhaps it is not the legislators but the bureaucrats who are behind the opposition to the new clause.

Mr. Gordon Wilson: Frankly, I am disappointed with the Secretary of State's reaction. I had hoped that he would be able to advance the case of the disabled further. Yet, after all the words and the promise of a draft circular, which is what it boils down to, we are no further advanced than we were at the start of the debate.
Government amendment No. 38 is useful. It is better than nothing but not much. We are still relying upon circulars and advisory provisions, although the Silver Jubilee report said that the building regulations, and so forth, should be mandatory.
With regard to new clause 10, various Governments have now been studying proposals for improvements for the disabled for three years. I draw the Minister's attention to one point in relation to the new clause. He has been given a year, in any event, until 31 March 1982, in which to provide the regulations incorporating the British Standards Institution code of practice, and so on. I believe that that gives him and his Department adequate time on top of the three years that he or his predecessors have already had for the production of the regulations.
I see no reason whatever why the Minister cannot accept new clause 10. I certainly hope that the House will take the matter into its own hands and put the new clause into law.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 64, Noes 118.

Division No.117]
[12.32 am


AYES


Alton, David
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)


Beith, A.J.
Lambie, David


Booth, Rt Hon Albert
Lamond, James


Bray, Dr Jeremy
McCartney, Hugh


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
McKay, Allen (Penistone)


Callaghan, Jim (Midd't'n &amp; P)
McKelvey, William


Campbell, Ian
MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Maclennan, Robert


Canavan, Dennis
McTaggart, Robert


Carmichael, Neil
McWilliam, John


Cocks, Rt Hon M. (B'stol S)
Marshall, D(G'gowS'ton)


Cook, Robin F.
Maxton, John


Craigen, J. M.
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce


Cryer, Bob
Morton, George


Dalyell, Tam
O'Neill, Martin


Davis, T. (B'ham, Stechf'd)
Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)


Dempsey, James
Prescott, John


Dewar, Donald
Ross, Ernest (Dundee West)


Dixon, Donald
Rowlands, Ted


Dormand, Jack
Sever, John


Douglas, Dick
Skinner, Dennis


Dubs, Alfred
Snape, Peter


Eadie, Alex
Spearing, Nigel


Eastham, Ken
Steel, Rt Hon David


Foster, Derek
Stewart, Rt Hon D. (W Isles)


Foulkes, George
Strang, Gavin


Grimond, Rt Hon J.
Tinn, James


Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Welsh, Michael


Hamilton, W. W. (C'tral Fife)
White, J. (G'gow Pollok)


Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Whitehead, Phillip


Haynes, Frank



Hogg, N. (E Dunb't'nshire)
Tellers for the Ayes:


HomeRobertson, John
Mr. Gordon Wilson and


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Mr. Dafydd Wigley.




NOES


Alexander, Richard
Fraser, Peter (South Angus)


Ancram, Michael
Garel-Jones, Tristan


Atkins, Robert (Preston N)
Goodlad, Alastair


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Gorst, John


Benyon, Thomas (A 'don)
Gray, Hamish


Berry, Hon Anthony
Griffiths, Peter Portsm'th N)


Best, Keith
Hawkins, Paul


Bevan, David Gilroy
Hawksley, Warren


Biggs-Davison, John
Henderson, Barry


Blackburn, John
Hurd, HonDouglas


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Braine, Sir Bernard
King, Rt Hon Tom


Bright, Graham
Knight, MrsJill


Brinton, Tim
Lang, Ian


Brooke, Hon Peter
LeMarchant, Spencer


Budgen, Nick
Lester Jim (Beeston)


Carlisle, John (Luton West)
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Lyell, Nicholas


Chapman, Sydney
Macfarlane, Neil


Clark, Hon A, (Plym'th, S'n)
MacGregor, John


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
MacKay, John (Argyll)


Cockeram, Eric
McNair-Wison, M. (N'bury)


Colvin, Michael
McQuarrie, Albert


Cope, John
Madel, David


Corrie, John
Major, John


Cranborne, Viscount
Marlow, Tony


Crouch, David
Marten, Neil (Banbury)


Dover, Denshore
Mather, Carol


Dunn, Robert (Dartford)
Maude, Rt Hon Sir Angus


Dykes, Hugh
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Fairbairn, Nicholas
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Fairgrieve, Russell
Mills, Iain (Meriden)


Fletcher, A, (Ed'nb'gh N)
Moate, Roger


Fowler, Rt Hon Norman
Monro, Hector






Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)
Stanbrook, Ivor


Murphy, Christopher
Stevens, Martin


Myles, David
Stewart,A. (E Renfrewshire)


Needham, Richard
Stradling Thomas,J.


Nelson, Anthony
Taylor, Teddy (S' end E)


Neubert, Michael
Temple-Morris, Peter


Newton, Tony
Thomas, Rt Hon Peter


Normanton, Tom
Thompson, Donald


Page, Rt Hon Sir G, (Crosby)
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Page, Richard (SW Herts)
Townsend, Cyril D, (B'heath)


Pattie, Geoffrey
Trippier, David


Pollock, Alexander
Waddington, David


Proctor, K, Harvey
Wakeham, John


Raison, Timothy
Walker, B. (Perth)


Rathbone, Tim
Waller, Gary


Renton, Tim
Ward, John


Rhodes James, Robert
Watson, John


Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Wells, Bowen


Ridley, Hon Nicholas
Wheeler, John


Rifkind, Malcolm
Wolfson, Mark


Roberts, M. (Cardiff NW)
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Rost, Peter
Younger, Rt Hon George


Sainsbury, Hon Timothy



Speller, Tony
Tellers for the Noes:


Spicer, Jim (West Dorset)
Lord James Douglas-Hamilton


Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)
and


Sproat, Iain
Mr. John Selwyn Gummer.


Squire, Robin

Question accordingly negatived.

New clause 11

MINIBUS UNDERTAKING BY ISLANDS COUNCIL

`(1) An Islands Council is hereby authorised to operate an omnibus undertaking.

(2) Part V of the Road Traffic Act 1930 shall apply to that undertaking as it applies to undertakings authorised by a local Act or Order.'.—[Mr. Donald Stewart.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Donald Stewart: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
This clause has been put down on behalf of the Western Isles islands council and it is possible that the islands councils of the Orkneys and Shetlands will have an interest in it. The councils are faced with the withdrawal of bus services, and there is no alternative means of public transport. The councils do not, under existing legislation, have any powers to run a bus service.
I have been in correspondence with the Scottish Office on the matter. It takes the view that the problem should be resolved by private legislation, which, it assures me, it would not oppose. But private legislation is costly, and, in view of the calls from the Government to cut local government expenditure, I hope that the Government will support to my local council by not putting it to the expense of having to legislate privately if the necessary provisions could be incorporated in this Bill.
There has been a suggestion that the Scottish Bus Group should be approached to run services. The council has had discussions with the group, but it has proved impossible to get it to come into the islands to do so. The Western Isles islands council is not desperate to run bus services, and it regards the idea with some reluctance. The public interest and the rights of existing operators would be safeguarded by the second part of the new clause, for any application by the council would have to go before the traffic commissioners in the normal way.
The problems of the island authorities are peculiar and distinctive, because no national major bus companies are

operating in the islands like those available to the regional councils in the rest of Scotland. The existing services are of a particularly fragile nature.
Because it has proved impossible to get any alternative form of transport, and because it would be with great reluctance that the islands council would seek at least to have power in its hands to operate these services should the situation arise, there would not seem to be any reason in equity or common sense why this proposal should not be accepted by the Government.

Mr. Grimond: I support the aim of the new clause, the Second Reading of which has been moved by the right hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. Stewart).
The aim of the clause is plain. It is to provide transport in the event of all other possibilities failing in rural areas and islands, which is already happening, and, indeed, to prevent the depopulation of such areas. At a time when these areas are being crippled by another 20p on the price of a gallon of petrol, this clause is particularly relevant. Until now there has been a lot of giving of lifts and sharing of transport, but everybody is now feeling the effect of the Government's proposals. The Chancellor of the Exchequer seems to believe that in rural areas petrol is the equivalent of liqueurs, caviare and other luxuries. It is, of course, essential to them, and particularly to agricultrure. Therefore, I strongly support the aim of the new clause.
I have more doubt about the method, because I see local authorities taking on more and more miscellaneous business. I should like to think that their finances will be put in order and their methods of raising taxation reformed. I should like to think also that their functions will be laid down, and indeed their constitutions looked at, before they take on any more functions.
The provisions in the new clause would be used only as a last resort. In many places, even where private garages are prepared to run transport services it is very often a monopoly, and it is valuable to have a power of this sort as a last resort, even though there is a possibility of getting someone to take on the job.
I have doubts about the method because the first thing that we should do before going in for this sort of Bill is to lay down the functions of local authorities. I see us repeating many of the mistakes that were made over nationalisation from 1945 onwards, when the State took on all sorts of functions, did not give sufficient attention to how they would be discharged and now finds them a severe handicap round its neck. I foresee a kind of local authority Sir Keith Joseph in 20 or 30 years' time grappling with some of the functions now being sought by local authorities.
Although I foresee that danger, as the Government have not taken any steps to define their functions, reform their finances, or to change the constitutions of local authorities I do not see what alternative there is to this type of new clause. We all hope that the proposal to combine school transport, the delivery of mail and passenger transport will be pursued, but it is not always possible to combine them.
I hope, too, that the Government will investigate the overlapping of public authorities, the Scottish Office and the local authorities in some of their functions and see whether the Highlands and Islands Development Board, or, as the right Gentleman said, the Scottish Transport Group, would be able to help in this sort of matter.
I come back to the point that much the cheapest way to assist rural transport, and the way that would be most agreeable to the Government, is either to reduce taxation or at least to offset the cost of the extra taxation for the areas particularly affected. The Government have done none of the things about local government that would set at rest the minds of people like myself, and therefore we have to deal with the situation as it is.
I do not believe that this matter can be dealt with by private legislation. The local authorities are already a dripping roast for lawyers and other professional people. The Shetland islands council expended about £600,000 on consultancies last year, let alone the fees that it paid to various bodies in London.
It would be extremely expensive for every local authority to promote private legislation to get that done. It is a problem which is arising, as far as I know, in all the island groups. Therefore, in present circumstances, I see no alternative to the clause. Unless the Government can assure me that they have an alternative, I hope that they will accept the principle of the new clause. If they do not like its form I hope that they will make their detailed proposals in another place.
Transport in the rural areas, particularly in the islands, is a very serious problem. The local authorities already have power to run ferries. It would not, therefore, be a breach of principle for them to be given these powers. They would be statutory powers of last resort excercised only when no other local transport was available.

Mr. Younger: I appreciate the concern that both right hon. Gentlemen have expressed on this matter. As the right hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. Stewart) said, he has corresponded with us about the problems there. Regional and island councils are responsible for public transport as a whole. They have a duty under section 151(1)(a) of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973 to
promote the provision of a co-ordinated and efficient system of public passenger transport to meet the needs of their area.
But the 1973 Act does not empower them to run buses, and that is the problem.
This power is available to other local authorities. It is available, for instance, to the Lothian, Grampian, and Tayside regional councils and to the Strathclyde passenger transport executive. But it is available to them under local Acts. And outside of the four cities bus services are provided, with support from the regional and islands councils, by the Scottish Bus Group, private bus operators and the Post Office with its very successful post buses which are to be found in many parts of the Highlands.
I appreciate that in the Western Isles in particular, and probably in the Shetlands as well, difficulty has been experienced sometimes in finding an operator who is prepared to carry on the work. I agree that it is a problem for the islands. We should certainly be glad to do anything we can to help them in finding people to run the buses if operators go out of business and so on. But for two reasons I do not believe that what the right hon. Member for Western Isles proposes is the right way to achieve the objective. It is too widely drawn because it covers all the island councils and gives a completely wide power, not merely a power of last resort.
Secondly, when private legislation is available and is the basis for all the other public passenger transport undertakings in the cities and regional councils in the rest of

Scotland, that is much the most satisfactory way of providing the power if the right hon. Gentleman, his colleagues and his council feel they would like to have it. Then it would work satisfactorily as it does in the other areas. It would be on the same basis as in all those other areas and would fit in much better to the local government system generally.
I am not sure what the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) means about the cost of private legislation. I have not investigated what it would be, but I cannot imagine that it would be so prohibitive as to be impossible. Let me repeat what I think has already been indicated to the right hon. Member for Western Isles in correspondence. We in the Government would certainly not wish to oppose such private legislation if it were brought forward in suitable form. I urge him, in spite of his reluctance on this matter to accept that this is the quickest, simplest and easiest way to proceed in the matter and to provide the powers that he and his islands council want.
With that in mind I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will withdraw the clause and proceed—I shall give every help I can—by private legislation.

Mr. Russell Johnston: I had not intended to intervene, but I found the Secretary of State's argument very unsound. Essentially, he said that since the transport systems in Lothian—which originally was Edinburgh corporation—and in Glasgow likewise were based on private legislation, which presumably goes back to the early days of street horse-drawn tramways, this is the best way of dealing with what he admits is a real problem in the Western Isles, Orkney and Shetland.
I do not understand the strength of that argument. I do not understand the Secretary of State when he says that to do it in that way would fit in better with the existing system of local government. That is the sort of bureaucratic phrase that is produced by St. Andrew's House and which on analysis is found to mean nothing.
The right hon. Gentleman said that the easiest way of dealing with the matter was by private legislation. That is not true. The easiest way of dealing with it is to accept the new clause and pass it into Legislation. Even if the stories of the profligacy of Shetland in employing large numbers of lawyers and consultants have been slightly exaggerated by my right hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond), nevertheless, to progress private legislation in this House would take time and money. Passing the new clause tonight would take neither time nor money.
I therefore ask the Secretary of State to reconsider his brief and to apply his own good, intelligent, Scottish mind to the matter and come up with a different answer.

Mr. Donald Stewart: I am very grateful to the hon. Member for Inverness (Mr. Johnston), who put the case forcefully. I assure the House that the Scottish Transport Group has had discussions with my council and that there is no way in which it can be enticed to come in. My council has no wish to have any extra functions added to those it already has. The Secretary of State says that the proposal would apply to all island councils. That sounds very widespread, but there are three of them in the whole of Scotland, so it is not very extensive.
The figure quoted to me for private legislation was in the region of £3,000 for each council. It may not seem very


much, but all the island councils are under pressure from the Scottish Office to reduce their expenses, so any suggestion for avoidable expense ought to be accepted by the Secretary of State.
We do not want to add to the bureaucracy by putting this proposal through private legislation. As the hon. Member for Inverness has said, the new clause is the most sensible, cheapest and fairest way of doing it.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 46, Noes 113.

Division No, 118]
[12,58 am


AYES


Alton, David
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)


Beith, A. J.
Lambie, David


Brown, Hugh D, (Provan)
McKay, Allen (Penistone)


Campbell-Savours, Dale
McKelvey, William


Canavan, Dennis
MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor


Carmichael, Neil
Maclennan, Robert


Cocks, Rt Hon M, (B'stol S)
McTaggart, Robert


Craigen, J. M.
McWilliam, John


Cryer, Bob
Marshall, D (G'gowS'ton)


Dalyell, Tam
Maxton, John


Davis, T, (B'ham, Stechf'd)
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce


Dewar, Donald
Morton, George


Dixon, Donald
O'Neill, Martin


Dormand, Jack
Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)


Douglas, Dick
Ross, Ernest (Dundee West)


Eadie, Alex
Sever, John


Foster, Derek
Spearing, Nigel


Foulkes, George
Strang, Gavin


Grimond, Rt Hon J.
Welsh, Michael


Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
White, J. (G'gow Pollok)


Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Whitehead, Phillip


Haynes, Frank



Hogg, N. (E Dunb't'nshire)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Home Robertson, John
Mr, Donald Stewart and


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Mr. Gordon Wilson.




NOES


Alexander, Richard
Griffiths, Peter Portsm'th N)


Ancram, Michael
Gummer, John Selwyn


Atkins, Robert (Preston N)
Hannam, John


Benyon, Thomas (A'don)
Hawkins, Paul


Berry, Hon Anthony
Hawksley, Warren


Best, Keith
Henderson, Barry


Bevan, David Gilroy
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Biggs-Davison, John
King, Rt Hon Tom


Blackburn, John
Knight, Mrs Jill


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Lang, Ian


Braine, SirBernard
LeMarchant, Spencer


Bright, Graham
Lester Jim (Beeston)


Brinton, Tim
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Budgen, Nick
Lyell, Nicholas


Carlisle, John (Luton West)
Macfarlane, Neil


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
MacGregor, John


Chapman, Sydney
MacKay, John (Argyll)


Clark, Hon A, (Plym'th, S'n)
McNair-Wilson, M.(N'bury)


Clarke,Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
McQuarrie, Albert


Colvin, Michael
Madel, David


Cope, John
Major, John


Corrie, John
Marlow, Tony


Cranborne, Viscount
Maude, Rt Hon Sir Angus


Crouch, David
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Douglas-Hamilton, LordJ.
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Dover, Denshore
Mills Iain (Meriden)


Dunn, Robert (Dartford)
Moate, Roger


Dykes, Hugh
Monro, Hector


Fairbairn, Nicholas
Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)


Fairgrieve, Russell
Murphy, Christopher


Fletcher, A, (Ed'nb'ghN)
Myles, David


Fraser, Peter (South Angus)
Needham, Richard


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Nelson, Anthony


Goodlad, Alastair
Neubert, Michael


Gorst, John
Newton, Tony


Gray, Hamish
Normanton, Tom





Page, Rt Hon Sir G. (Crosby)
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Page, Richard (SW Herts)
Temple-Morris, Peter


Pattie, Geoffrey
Thomas, Rt Hon Peter


Pollock, Alexander
Thompson, Donald


Proctor, K, Harvey
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Raison, Timothy
Townsend, Cyril D, (B'heath)


Rathbone, Tim
Trippier, David


Renton, Tim
Waddington, David


Rhodes James, Robert
Wakeham, John


Rhys Williams, SirBrandon
Walker, B. (Perth)


Rifkind, Malcolm
Waller, Gary


Roberts, M. (Cardiff NW)
Ward, John


Rost, Peter
Watson, John


Sainsbury, Hon Timothy
Wells, Bowen


Speller, Tony
Wheeler, John


Spicer, Jim (West Dorset)
Wolfson, Mark


Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Sproat, Iain
Younger, Rt Hon George


Squire,Robin



Stanbrook, Ivor
Tellers for the Noes:


Stevens, Martin
Mr. Carol Mather and


Stewart, A. (E Renfrewshire)
Mr. Peter Brooke.


Stradling Thomas, J.

Question accordingly negatived.

New Clause 12

SCOTTISH LOCAL GOVERNMENT STATISTICS

The Secretary of State shall publish an annual volume of local government financial statistics within 12 months of the end of the financial year in question".—[Mr. Dewar.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Dewar: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The clause has no hidden subtleties. It has the immense advantage of saying exactly what it means. Therefore, there is every hope that the Secretary of State will be able to deal with it sympathetically and adequately. At least he will understand it, and so will I.
There is a sad lack in the provision of local government financial statistics for Scotland. There is published every year the "Scottish Abstract of Statistics", but this is something of a catch-as-catch-can bumper book of goodies. Those who consult it will find that it covers social work, employment, education, social security, law enforcement, and anything one cares to mention. What is not in the range of publications available to MPs or to anyone else interested is a specialist publication covering local government finance specifically.
The English have every year "Local Government Financial Statistics", and obviously that is of considerable assistance to them. The Welsh have a splendid publication. This is the fourth year in which it has been produced. It is "Welsh Local Government Financial Statistics". It runs to over 90 pages. It covers almost every conceivable aspect of what would be, for us, rate support grant, housing support grant, outturn figures, housing capital allocations—the whole complicated labyrinthal jungle of local government finance through which some of us, as amateurs, attempt nervously to thread our way.
I am merely suggesting to the Minister that it would be excellent if, even five years late, we caught up with what the Welsh are already doing and produced for Scotland this range of facts and figures. I commend that idea to the right hon. Gentleman with the thought that at least it would be likely to cut down the number of written questions that I, for one, table to him and which have to be dealt with by his long-suffering officials, and that therefore, there might


be a considerable offsetting saving in public funds if there were to be an adequate annual publication of the kind that I am recommending to him.

Mr. Norman Hogg: I rise to support my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar), because I believe that there is a strong case for the new clauses, given that we have publications for England and Wales but not for Scotland, notwithstanding the "Abstract of Statistics" which is published annually.
There is an increasing interest in local government finance. Over the past few months, those of us who have been involved in the work of the Select Committee and of the Standing Committee on this Bill have had that demonstrated to us by the number of representations from external organisations and organisations within local government. I am impressed by the amount of interest that is shown in this area.
There is a great deal of interest in local government services. That has been increasing not least because of the impact of Government policy on local government services. It would help immensely if we had an annual return of figures published in a form which could be easily read by those who have an interest in these matters.
Also, the drawing of comparisons between authorities would be facilitated if we had such a publication. There is also the interest of the employees of local government, who are concerned to ensure that the service compares favourably as between one authority and another. Such a publication would be of interest in negotiations over pay and conditions of service. It is important that there should be the widest information available to those engaged on that on both sides of the negotiating table.
Ratepayers and tenants in the wider community have a right to know, and if there is a strong case for publishing such figures, it is on the argument of the right to know. Conservative Members said a lot about that before the present Government came into office, but they have not said so much about it since then. The public have a right to know how public money is being spent. A publication of the kind sought by my right hon. Friend the Member for Garscadden would be a help in that direction.

Mr. Younger: I appreciate what the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) had in mind when tabling the new clause. I agree with him and with his hon. Friend the Member for Dunbartonshire, East (Mr, Hogg) that there is a need for information to be published timeously and in a form in which we can most easily use it.
It has been mentioned that the "Rating Review" is an extremely useful document that we are all used to using, and the Scottish Office co-operates closely with the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy on the provision of data for inclusion in the "Rating Review".
1.15 am
As the hon. Gentleman knows, section 118 of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973 provides that the

Secretary of State may require all local authorities to make returns of specified information and the Secretary of Slate is required to lay before Parliament a summary of the information that he collects. That is a useful power, but, unfortunately, due to the difficulties that local authorities have been working under since reorganisation, none of these publications has come out since 1974–75. The assembly of information, however, has now been brought forward for the intervening years and information for the years 1975–76, 1976–77 and 1977–78 is complete. A single volume of financial statistics covering all three years will be published shortly.
I hope that that will go some way to putting right the backlog. I agree that we should try to get publication on a regular and timeous basis in future. However, I should be slightly nervous about writing into a statute a provision to the effect that it would have to be published within 12 months of the end of a financial year. It may seem to be a rather low aim to think that it might be difficult to produce it within 12 months of the end of a financial year, but it is not uncommon for local authority information to be outstanding as late as October or November following the end of the financial year, bearing in mind the printing and other difficulties involved in bringing together information from 65 different authorities. It is quite possible that with the best will in the world, information would not be quite available within 12 months of the end of the financial year. I accept the spirit of what is involved in the new clause. It should be the aim of the Scottish Office and the local authority to provide the information or to produce it within a year from the end of the financial year, because otherwise it becomes increasingly less useful. But I am afraid that I cannot accept the new clause as drafted, for the reasons that I have spelt out.
I hope that the hon. Gentleman will feel that it is worth his while to withdraw the new clause now in the knowledge that we shall shortly publish figures for three of the intervening years and that I accept the spirit of trying to ensure that in future figures are produced regularly and timeously if possible within one year.

Mr. Dewar: I do not wish forcibly to feed the right hon. Gentleman with the new clause. I do not intend to pursue the matter. The Secretary of State deserves a gold star for effort. He has appreciated his one hundred and fourteenth problem of the evening. We are grateful for the fact that on this occasion he appears likely to do something about it.
We cannot all be proud of the fact that in 1981 we shall be soon be receiving the statistics for 1975–76 and the two subsequent years. But, for these small crumbs of comfort much thanks. I hope that in future we shall be able to get nearer the annual publication that we ask for in the clause. It is a genuine point and there may have been difficulties, but local government reorganisation is now behind us. I presume that the statistical departments are well established and embedded in their annual rounds and I should not have thought that it was beyond the ingenuity of that mighty organ of government, the Scottish Office, to produce the statistics reasonably timeously. With those remarks, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion and clause, by leave withdrawn.

Further consideration of the Bill adjourned.—[Mr. Younger.]

Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), to be further considered this day.

National Health Service (Scotland)

Mr. Bruce Millan: I beg to move,
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the National Health Service (Functions of Health Boards) (Scotland) Order 1981 (S.I., 1981, No. 106), dated 28 January 1981, a copy of which was laid before this House on 9 February, be revoked,
In my enthusiasm for the previous debate, I almost forgot this motion, but not quite. The order deals with private practice within the National Health Service in Scotland. It is right that this issue should be discussed, especially as the Government have repealed the legislation introduced by the Labour Government that would have achieved the gradual phasing out of pay beds not only in Scotland but in England and Wales. I regret deeply that the Government introduced that legislation. The Opposition will ensure that the next Labour Government take up where the previous Labour Government left off and that they provide for the phasing out of pay beds from the National Health Service.
We are now, however, in a different situation. Our first question is, what is the present situation over pay beds? How has it changed since 1979? What are the Government's intentions?
This is a difficult period for the Health Service in Scotland. If the hour had been more propitious, a wider debate would have been useful. Despite the protestations of the Minister on numerous occasions that Health Service expenditure is being maintained—I believe that he has gone so far as to claim that it has been slightly enhanced—the reality is that severe cuts are being imposed in many parts of the National Health Service in Scotland. New beds are not being brought into use because of shortage of funds. Difficult situations prevail in many of the health board areas.
At a time when the basic service finds difficulty in surviving due to the financial stringencies that have been imposed by the Government, it would be intolerable if there were a build-up within the National Health Service of private patients in terms of pay beds, usage of outpatient facilities or in any other way. There must be a danger, when the service finds difficulty in making ends meet, that it will try to solve some of its problems by encouraging more private patients to come within the National Health Service. That would be entirely undesirable and disagreeable. The next Labour Government will take the necessary steps to see that the separation between private and NHS practice takes place.
It is difficult to understand what the Government are trying to achieve through the order. One reason for the debate is to ask the Minister what its provisions mean. An accompanying circular was issued to secretaries of health boards on 17 February. I recognise that Scottish Office circulars are not always masterpieces of clarity, but this is one of the most obscure circulars I have ever read. I make it a practice these days not to read Scottish Office circulars unless it is absolutely necessary. I cannot make head nor tail of the circular.

Mr. Dennis Canavan: We cannot make head or tail of the Minister either.

Mr. Millan: We should give the Minister a chance. He will perhaps explain the order so that hon. Members may know what it means. We live in hope. We shall hear he says.
There seems no rhyme or reason in the order to explain which powers over use of National Health Service facilities for private purposes are delegated to health authorities and which are retained by the Secretary of State.
There seems to be some intention in the circular to give rather more power to health boards in the private sector. We oppose that in principle, but if it is to happen the Minister is under an obligation to tell us exactly how, and how he sees the effect of the order increasing—if that is the intention—the use of Health Service facilities by private patients.
For example, in article 2(2)(a), on the use by private nursing homes of diagnostic and other NHS facilities, we see that everything is now to be delegated to the health boards—the use of the facilities, the terms under which they are used, and the general provision of the facilities. Why is that now delegated to the boards?
We see in article 2(2)(b) that, although the use of amenity beds is delegated, as is the recovery of the charges, the fixing of the charges is not. That is to continue to be controlled by the Secretary of State. Therefore, there is a difference between the use of the diagnostic facilities and the amenity beds.
When we come to private in-patients there is another pattern. The authorisation of the extent of the use is not delegated, nor is the determination of the charges. The only matter that the boards seem to have delegated to them is getting the money from the patients once they have had treatment in the hospitals.
We need clarification from the Minister as to exactly what is happening. Is he authorising more use of Health Service facilities for private patients? Are beds being set aside? What are the numbers involved? What has happened? There is nothing in the order or the circular that gives us any idea what the Government are doing. We need more information about that.
The same is true of private out-patients. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) has mentioned to me the use of facilities. He has told me of a chiropodist using NHS facilities. The whole question of the use of NHS facilities, whether by medical practitioners, dental practitioners or professions supplementary to medicine, needs a good deal of careful consideration. Many of us believe that it is very odd that people in private practice have the extensive use of NHS facilities. It is anomalous at the best of times. We want to know whether it is the Government's intention in the regulations to encourage more use of NHS facilities by private practice. If that is their intention, considerable justification is needed.
There is no doubt that NHS facilities are used by private patients at the expense, to a greater or lesser degree, of the ordinary NHS patient. It was part of the purpose of the Labour Government—by, for example, the introduction of common waiting lists—to ensure that no private patient, simply because he was paying money into the Health Service, had priority over the ordinary NHS patient.
I think that the common waiting lists have been abandoned. Perhaps the Minister will confirm that, and tell us how, in those circumstances, it is ensured that the use of NHS facilities by private patients is not at the expense

of the ordinary NHS patient. I believe that that happens on a considerable scale at present. The Government's actions and the order will have the effect, directly or indirectly, of increasing that discrimination in favour of the private patient.
The NHS should be adequate for the needs of the majority of ordinary patients, who in Scotland are nearly all NHS patients. I am glad to say that the extent of private practice in Scotland is considerably smaller that it is in England and Wales. During the period of office of the previous Labour Government the extent of the use of the service by private practice for pay beds was being diminished still further. It was not a problem of great controversy even within the medical profession in Scotland. Unfortunately, the present Government, with their doctrinaire attitudes, changed the legislation and have been trying to increase the use of the NHS by private patients.
We deplore that trend, and it is therefore right that we should be debating the order. which will have a significant effect on what happens to private practice within the NHS, and expressing our displeasure at what the Government are doing, even if we have to do it at this unearthly hour of the morning.

Mr. Robert Hughes: When I first read the order it was in the cold light of day and when I was considerably more awake than I am now. Even then, I found it obscure and difficult to follow. On re-reading it at this time in the morning, I am left even more confused.
I direct the Minister's attention to article 2(2), which states:
Every Board shall exercise the functions conferred upon the Secretary of State by the provisions of the Act which are specified in the following sub-paragraphs of this paragraph, but only with respect to the matters and to the extent so specified. namely:—
(a) by section 50(1)(b) with respect to allowing persons to make use of any accommodation or services provided under the Act"—
which seems reasonable enough—
deciding the terms upon which they may do so"—
which seems reasonable enough—
and providing such accommodation"—
which again seems reasonable enough, except that it continues—
of services to an extent greater than otherwise necessary".
The order states that services are to be provided and accommodation is to be provided
to an extent greater than otherwise necessary.
I hope that the Minister will try to explain what this provision is all about. If the hour were earlier, I should read other sub-paragraphs, all of which are equally obscure and all of which make little sense.
The basic purpose of the Act is to extend the facilities available to private practice. We are totally opposed in principle to private practice being carried out within the NHS. The previous Labour Government made real progress in ending private beds in NHS hospitals. The Government have reversed that trend because they have a different philosophy. We should say to those in the Health Service "You either work in the service or you work outside it; make up your mind one way or the other."
The way in which the system operates was aptly and vividly described by a friend of mine at the Scottish Labour Party conference at Perth last weekend. Gordon


Craig of ASTMS said that consultants in Britain are the only craftsmen who do homers in company time on company premises using company tools and company staff. That expresses exactly what the consultants are doing. I know that many of them work full time for the Health Service, but those who do not, want their bread buttered and jamed on both sides. There is no place within the Health Service for private practice. It should be stopped. The regulations are an abomination and should be rejected.

Mr. John Maxton: My hon. Friend's quotation was apposite. Gordon Craig is also a friend of mine and a member of my constituency party. He is knowledgeable about the Health Service. He worked and negotiated in it for a long time, as I am sure the Minister is aware.
Although I was present for most of the previous debate, I went out for a quick cup of coffee. Lying on the table was a copy of The New Standard, with the "Stars" uppermost, telling me that today:
Nothing appears to be simple and straight forward any longer, mainly because no one will give you a direct or honest answer.
That is appropriate in view of the previous debate. I hope that the Minister will give us straight answers on this obscure proposed legislation.
It is disgraceful that a prayer dealing with important changes in principle in the use of NHS facilities can be debated only for a short time at this late hour. That is not the way to enact legislation. We deplore the extension of private medicine into the NHS.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Graigton (Mr. Millan) mentioned chiropodists. They are paid by the NHS but use their own facilities in the greater Glasgow health board area. An old-age pensioner receiving chiropody services asked me to take up her case with the health board. The service from her private practitioner was being withdrawn and she was being asked to attend a clinic. It would not be fair to name the chiropodist. The letter from the board stated that the chairman was not altogether surprised that the chiropodist had asked his patient to raise the matter, as in 1980 he was paid £23,000 for NHS fee-for-service patients, apart from anything that he may have earned from private practice.
There are 22 other practitioners in a somewhat similar situation.
The board is therefore paying about £529,000 altogether for the service.
Fortunately we are now in a position to recruit chiropodists to fill NHS chiropody sessions in health centres and clinics. This is certainly much less expensive than paying private chiropodists to treat NHS patients on a fee-for-service basis, and it also gives us the opportunity to exercise some control over the quality of the service provided.
That shows that already the NHS in that area is having to pay large sums that it could use to treat more patients considerably more cheaply. The legislation will allow practitioners making such large sums to move into clinics provided by the NHS. They may have to accept a slight reduction in their income from NHS patients, but they will be able to use all the NHS facilities—equipment, lighting and heating and presumably the services of the receptionist—and to treat their private patients in the

clinic. That is a disgraceful situation. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) that it is grossly unjust.
People in the National Health Service must make up their minds. I hope that when the Labour Party returns to power this will be done once and for all. Either people practice medicine privately and are paid for it, or they operate in the National Health Service. It should be one or the other.
If this kind of legislation continues, it seems to me that it could be argued under article 2(2)(b) that health boards may charge fees even to National Health Service patients
for part of the cost".
I may be misreading the provision, but I hope that the Minister can clear this up. Private medicine is moving in more and more. This will eventually lead to gross discriminations in the National Health Service whereby poorer patients receive poorer service. Labour Members are not prepared to tolerate that.

Mr. Dick Douglas: I shall not detain the House for long at this late hour. I should like the Under-Secretary of State to address his mind to one or two points, particularly in relation to recent happenings in the Fife health board area. Some time ago, the Minister was kind enough to meet my hon. Friends the Members for Kirkcaldy (Mr. Gourlay) and Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton) and myself to go over the rather squalid events in relation to Mr. Spence. We were given an undertaking that once the Minister had received a report from the Fife health board certain pronouncements would be made by him in relation to those events.
I draw the attention of the House to that episode for this reason. The situation with regard to Mr. Spence came to light through a chance telephone call from Private Patients Plan to the health board authority which indicated that Mr. Spence had given special treatment to someone coming from abroad into the Fife area to whom he should not have given treatment at all on an emergency basis. The Fife health authority, obeying the strictures, had no private patients at all. Yet in that situation, this individual was capable of giving special treatment to someone coming in from abroad.
What concerns me about the loosening of control is that there is apt to be, to put it as generously as possible, a Goschen law whereby bad medical practice coming in will drive out the good. It is unfortunate that the Government are allowing this. Many good consultants in Scotland will feel dissatisfied because of this loosening of the legislation by the Government. Bad medical practice and bad practice in relation to private patients will drive out good practice in the public sector.
My hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North referred to the situation put to the Minister again by ASTMS. As a trade union, ASTMS put a very cogent case to the Minister with particular reference to the use of laboratory facilities by consultants and others. That case has been put in the press and in the media generally. But to the best of my knowledge, the Minister has taken no opportunity to answer it. If ASTMS' case is not worthy of consideration, the Minister should say so. If there is substance in the case, people have a right to know whether consultants and others are indeed misusing National Health Service facilities in this way.
I hope that the Minister will address himself to the points that I have raised.

The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Russell Fairgrieve): Although the hour is late, this has been a short but interesting debate. Although the order deals with various matters in addition to private beds and private practice, it was on those points that the discussion concentrated. Discussion on these matters between the two parties tends to be lively. Perhaps it could have been livelier, but it is a rather late hour.
I am indebted to the four hon. Members who have spoken. They have obviously considered the matter in some detail. I hope that I shall be able to answer most of the points raised.
First, we had the introduction by the right hon. Member for Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Millan). During my remarks I shall reply to the point about pay beds in Scotland. However, only about a week ago, I issued details of the funds available to health boards in Scotland for the forthcoming year.

Mr. Millan: Too little.

Mr. Fairgrieve: The right hon. Gentleman says "Too little". The fact remains that the figure is up on the current year.

Mr. Millan: In real terms?

Mr. Fairgrieve: In real terms, I shall also explain what the Government are trying to do and why we have now delegated these matters to health boards. From what I say, I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will realise that nothing is at the expense of the NHS patient.
The right hon. Gentleman said that private practice in Scotland took place on a small scale. I agree. But that is something which we Conservatives regret. He asked why the Secretary of State controlled the charges for amenity beds. The general charges are settled by the Secretary of State, who also settles the charges for pay beds. The right hon. Gentleman also said that common waiting lists were being abandoned. I shall shortly say how they are not being abandoned, but strengthened.
The hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) said that he found the order obscure, but he also said that it was late at night. The order is no different from many other orders, but the obscurity was possibly caused by the hour. He mentioned his opposition to private practice in the NHS. I presume that that does not accord with certain parts of the Labour Party's remaining philosophy, which I believe once accepted the mixed economy. All that we are saying is that it should also accept the mixed economy in health.

Mr. Millan: The mixed-up economy.

Mr. Fairgrieve: The right hon. Gentleman, again from a sedentary position, says "The mixed-up economy". I call it the same mixed economy as we are trying to achieve elsewhere.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned article 2(2)(a) of the order and asked why it should include the phrase "greater than otherwise necessary". Broadly, the same provisions are contained in the National Health Service (Scotland) Act 1978, which allows boards to make provision for private facilities to an extent greater than ordinary NHS facilities.
The hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) told us about his stars. He also said that this was an obscure piece of legislation. I again put that remark down to the lateness of the hour. I intend to mention our views on the use of NHS facilities by private practice.
The hon. Member for Dunfermline (Mr. Douglas) mentioned the question of the loosening of controls. I think that he will see from my remarks that in fact there will be a tightening up of controls. He probably saw the parliamentary answer which I gave recently about the use of laboratory facilities.
The hon. Gentleman brought a delegation to meet me about Mr. Spence. This matter is not relevant to the order, but currently, to our regret, there are no private beds in Fife and we are awaiting the report from the Fife board on the matter.
I was asked to make clear what the order is about, but before dealing with it and the main points raised by hon. Members I want to make the Government's position on private beds and private practice clear. Our general philosophy is that people who wish to do so should be free to make arrangements for their private medical treatment. It is the Government's intention to encourage greater co-operation between the NHS and the private sector to the ultimate benefit of both. This co-operation includes, on the one hand, the provision of pay beds in NHS hospitals where there is a clear demand for them and where the interests of the NHS patients will not be prejudiced. That is our policy and we made it perfectly clear in our election manifesto.
On the other hand, our policy includes the use by the NHS of facilities in the private sector. There is nothing new in that. Health boards already have the use of some 969 beds in private hospitals and nursing homes, to which homes NHS patients are admitted. About 800 of these beds provide much-needed accommodation for geriatric and psychiatric long-stay patients. They make a valuable contribution to NHS resources and we are asking health boards to consider whether they might not make even more use of such facilities.
I turn now to the order itself. In going over its provisions, I hope that I can clear up some misunderstandings which clearly exist in the minds of hon. Members opposite. The essential purpose of the order is simple. It merely delegates to health boards certain functions which the Health Services Act 1980 conferred on my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. By no means all the functions conferred on him have been delegated. In particular, I should make it clear that he himself retains the power to authorise pay beds or private outpatient services. I shall say a little more about that in a moment.

Mr. Robert Hughes: Please do.

Mr. Fairgrieve: All hon. Members who spoke in the debate asked me to explain the order in some detail; and that I am trying to do.

Mr. Millan: I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman heard, but I asked him about the numbers of pay beds. Can he give us some answers on that?

Mr. Fairgrieve: There are, I believe, about 96 pay beds in Scotland, and I hope that that number will increase.
May I now indicate exactly what the order does? First, it delegates to the health boards certain powers of the


Secretary of State under section 50 of the 1978 Act. This allows health boards to allow persons or bodies outwith the NHS to make use of NHS facilities and to charge them for doing so. I emphasise that this has nothing whatever to do with pay beds or, indeed, with private patients of NHS consultants.
The kind of arrangements it makes possible in the provision of laboratory tests by NHS hospitals at the request of and subject to payment by a private hospital. Some food-processing firms make similar arrangements to use NHS testing facilities. For the future, health boards will not require authority to make such arrangements, but the order requires them to make an economic charge for the service.
The second function is related to the provision of amenity beds in hospitals.

Mr. Millan: Where does this order provide for them to make an economic charge? It merely says that they can decide the terms themselves. It does not say that they have to be economic.

Mr. Fairgrieve: As I have said, the Secretary of State lays down the charges and the boards are also enjoined to make an economic charge, which, as the right hon. Gentleman must realise, is a charge that covers their costs. That is clearly laid down.

Mr. Millan: If the hon. Gentleman is still talking about article 2(2)(a), he will see that it does not say any such thing. It says that the terms shall be decided by the boards themselves. It has nothing to do with the Secretary of State and it does not say that the charge has to be economic.

Mr. Fairgrieve: I do not accept that. The boards know their responsibilities under the Act. In furnishing their accounts, and in being accountable to the Secretary of State, it is their duty to charge an economic commercial price for the services that they carry out.
The second function is related to the provision of amenity beds in hospitals. These are the arrangements that provide a NHS patient, on payment of a small charge, with the facilities of a single room or a bed in a small ward. To date, the number of such beds has been authorised and fixed by the Secretary of State. Under this order health boards will be able to decide for themselves how many such beds they require. I expect no complaint about that from Labour Members. They have advocated the provision of more beds of this kind for NHS patients.
It is the third function of the order that deals with private patients in NHS hospitals. As I have already indicated, the 1980 statute gave the Secretary of State the power to authorise pay beds or out-patient services for private patients in NHS hospitals. All that the order does is to allow health boards to make local arrangements for using the pay beds or to provide out-patient services after the Secretary of State has authorised such facilities to be made available to private patients. It is on this part of the order that Labour Members have to some extent concentrated their criticism this evening. Their criticism derives from their basic opposition to private beds, and I accept that as their belief. I have already indicated the Government's basic policy on this matter. Let me indicate briefly how the authorisation of private beds will work.
It will be for health boards to put proposals for the authorisation of such beds to the Secretary of State, and

before they do that they have to carry out extensive local consultations. Only if the Secretary of State is satisfied that there will be no significant prejudice to NHS patients will he agree to authorise such beds. There is, moreover, no question of the Secretary of State's authorising private beds in the absence of proposals put to him by health boards.

Mr. Douglas: Can the hon. Gentleman say which bodies the health boards will have to consult? Will the Secretary of State describe these bodies to the health boards, or will the boards be given a free hand?

Mr. Fairgrieve: The health boards are continually in discussion with health councils, the medical profession, nurses and all the people for whom they are responsible on all these matters. They are in continual consultation with both private and public bodies that are interested in these matters.
We are just as anxious as are Labour Members to avoid prejudice to the rights of NHS patients. That is why, as I have said, beds will be authorised only when there is no significant disadvantage to NHS patients. Further, the Government have reached agreement with the medical profession on a code—which I have here—of six principles to govern private practice within NHS hospitals. We announced this during the passage of the legislation last year. The code is intended to provide additional non-statutory safeguards for the NHS patient. Perhaps the most important principle is the provision that paying and nonpaying patients should be on a common waiting list in cases that are urgent, where the patient is seriously ill or where the patient requires highly specialised diagnosis and treatment.

Mr. Millan: If the Government are keen on common waiting lists, why did they, by the 1980 Act, take out the specific provision for that in the 1978 Act? Why did they repeal the section about common waiting lists?

Mr. Fairgrieve: I suggest that they did not, and the provisions now laid down in the six conditions make it absolutely clear that the order of admission of such patients should be dictated solely by clinical needs.

Mr. Millan: There is no point in the Minister's saying that his Government did not do something when they did. Section 68 of the National Health Service (Scotland) Act 1978 dealt with common waiting lists. It was repealed by the 1980 Act. That is a fact. Why did the Government do it?

Mr. Fairgrieve: If the right hon. Member persists in that statement I merely say that I will look into the matter and give him a clear answer on it. But we have now agreed the six principles on common waiting lists.
The code of six principles was drawn up only last year. The new arrangements for dealing with private practice—including the emphasis on safeguarding the NHS patient—were promulgated by my Department only in January. The functions order which we are debating tonight and which gave effect to the main provisions came into operation only on 2 March. They need to be given a fair trial. If, after that, it can be shown that the position is unsatisfactory I and my right hon. Friend are prepared to review the matter to see whether anything else needs to be done.
The fourth and fifth functions which the order confers on health boards are related to general practice and not to


hospitals. The fourth function allows health boards to decide for themselves when to provide houses and surgeries for doctors in remote areas. Before the inception of the NHS in 1948, the Highlands and Islands medical service provided houses and surgeries for doctors in the very remote areas as a means of providing a service to the population. After 1948, these arrangements were continued by my Department. We think the time has come to leave health boards to take such local decisions themselves.
Finally, the order will allow health boards to exercise the function now performed by the Secretary of State to allow general practitioners who use Health Service accommodation, such as health centres, to carry out a limited amount of private practice in those premises. This right was guaranteed to general practitioners by the Labour Government in the Health Services Act 1976.
This somewhat petty and doctrinaire prayer is a symptom of a sickness which now grips the Labour Party. It attacks freedom of choice in the health service as it has attacked the parents' charter in education and the right of the council tenant to buy his house in which he has made his home.
To the Marxists who are now leading the Labour Party by the nose, freedom is anathema. Choice in health, in education, in housing, militates against the total State control they want for everyone and everything in the land. Their tactics are revealed by the level at which they have pitched their attack. They are not interested, for the moment, in the bloke who can afford full private medical treatment and expensive surgery—not unknown to some Labour Members—nor the person who can send his son to Eton, or even Westminster, as Lord Stansgate did for his son, nor property and land-owners like the hon. Member for Berwick and East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson). They can be isolated and picked off later.
Labour Members are after the chap—perhaps a middle manager, a foreman or a trade union official—who was sent by his parents to a modest fee-paying school and who now, as a result of his own hard work and saving, wants to thank those parents by giving them a little extra privacy in illness. That is the target area. [Interruption.] It would appear that Labour Members do not like the truth when they have to listen to it.
Many ordinary people want to spend their money on these things, and in the process they ease the load on the State services. They do not ask for a rebate on rates and taxes, which go to fund the National Health Service and State education. They want to do this because they care about their parents and their children. Labour Members see that as a crime.
So now we know. In the Marxist State that the new real Labour bosses want in Britain, it would be criminal to care for one's own family in health, education or housing; criminal to be generous to anyone but the State. It is all right for people to spend their money on booze, baccy or betting, but not on other things.
Regrettably, human aspirations are the scourge of Marxism. Freedom of choice and the right of the individual to dispose of his hard-earned income as he thinks fit are all against the principles of total State control.
The British people want pay-beds. At the last election they said so. They are going to have them. Labour Members, in opposing this measure, demonstrate, as they have done so often, that they are totally out of touch with

reality. They must know that they cannot take the same line with freedom of choice in this country as the Russians are taking with Solidarity in Poland.
I am sure that what I have said will reassure the House that the provisions of the order are eminently reasonable, and I ask the House to reject the motion.

Question put:—

The House divided: Ayes 43, Noes 104.

Division No, 119]
[2,07 am


AYES


Beith, A.J.
Lambie, David


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
McKelvey, William


Campbell-Savours, Dale
MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor


Canavan, Dennis
McTaggart, Robert


Carmichael, Neil
McWilliam, John


Cocks, Rt Hon M. (B'stol S)
Marshall, D (G'gow S'ton)


Craigen, J. M.
Maxton, John


Cryer, Bob
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce


Dalyell, Tam
Morton, George


Davis, T, (B'ham, Stechf'd)
O'Neill, Martin


Dewar, Donald
Powell, Raymond (Ogmore,)


Dixon, Donald
Ross, Ernest (Dundee West)


Dormand, Jack
Snape, Peter


Douglas, Dick
Spearing, Nigel


Eadie, Alex
Strang, Gavin


Foster, Derek
Tinn, James


Foulkes, George
Welsh, Michael


Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Whitehead, Phillip


Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)


Haynes, Frank



Hogg, N, (E Dunb't'nshire)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Home Robertson, John
Mr. Allen McKay and


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Mr. Hugh McCartney.


Johnston, Russell (Inverness)





NOES


Alexander, Richard
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Atkins, Robert (Preston N)
Knight, Mrs Jill


Benyon, Thomas (A'don)
Lang, Ian


Berry, Hon Anthony
LeMarchant, Spencer


Best, Keith
Lester Jim (Beeston)


Bevan, David Gilroy
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Biggs-Davison, John
Lyell, Nicholas


Blackburn, John
Macfarlane, Neil


Boscawen, Hon Robert
MacGregor, John


Braine, Sir Bernard
MacKay, John (Argyll)


Bright, Graham
McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)


Brinton, Tim
McQuarrie, Albert


Brooke, Hon Peter
Madel, David


Budgen, Nick
Major, John


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Marlow, Tony


Chapman, Sydney
Mather, Carol


Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th, S'n)
Maude, Rt Hon Sir Angus


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Colvin, Michael
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Cope, John
Mills, Iain (Meriden)


Corrie, John
Moate, Roger


Cranborne, Viscount
Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)


Crouch, David
Murphy, Christopher


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.
Myles, David


Dover, Denshore
Needham, Richard


Dunn, Robert (Dartford)
Nelson, Anthony


Dykes, Hugh
Neubert, Michael


Fairbairn, Nicholas
Normanton, Tom


Fairgrieve, Russell
Page, Rt Hon Sir G. (Crosby)


Fletcher, A. (Ed'nb'gh N)
Page, Richard (SW Herts)


Fraser, Peter (South Angus)
Pattie, Geoffrey


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Pollock, Alexander


Goodlad, Alastair
Proctor, K. Harvey


Gorst, John
Rathbone, Tim


Gray, Hamish
Renton, Tim


Griffiths, Peter Portsm'th N)
Rhodes James, Robert


Gummer, John Selwyn
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Hannam, John
Roberts, M, (Cardiff NW)


Hawkins, Paul
Rost, Peter


Hawksley, Warren
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy


Henderson, Barry
Speller, Tony






Spicer, Jim (West Dorset)
Wakeham, John


Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)
Walker, B. (Perth)


Sproat, Iain
Waller, Gary


Stanbrook, Ivor
Ward, John


Stevens, Martin
Watson, John


Stewart, A. (E Renfrewshire)
Wells, Bowen


Stradling Thomas, J.
Wheeler, John


Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)
Wolfson, Mark


Temple-Morris, Peter
Young, SirGeorge (Acton)


Thomas, Rt Hon Peter



Townsend, Cyril D, (B'heath)
Tellers for the Noes:


Trippier, David
Mr. Tony Newton and


Waddington, David
Mr. Donald Thompson.

Question accordingly negatived.

TRANSPORT [MONEY] (No. 2)

Queen's Recommendation having been signified—

Resolved,
That for the purposes of any Act of this Session to make further provision for promoting road safety it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of—
(a) any expenses of the Secretary of State under provisions of that Act relating to road humps;
(b) any increase attributable to those provisions in the sums so payable under any other Act.—[Mr. Kenneth Clarke.]

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 73A (Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.)

SOCIAL SECURITY

(SUPPLEMENTARY BENEFIT)

That the draft Supplementary Benefit (Requirements) Amendment Regulations 1981, which were laid before this House on 3 March, be approved.

CIVIL AVIATION

(MORTGAGING OF AIRCRAFT)

That the draft Mortgaging of Aircraft (Amendment) Order 1981, which was laid before this House on 4 March, be approved.—[Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]

Question agreed to.

North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (Weapons)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]

Mr. D. A. Trippier: Almost three years ago the House was presented with arguments in favour of a drive towards the interoperability and standardisation of NATO weaponry. A similar call has echoed through the parliamentary halls and military ranks of many other nations in the Alliance for a generation. A number of successes have been achieved, but for the most part the call has remained unanswered.
It has been the policy of our nation for years to support any initiatives towards the goals of interoperability and standardisation taken by the Alliance as a whole or by individual members of the Alliance. I feel that the time has come for the Government actively to step up every possible initiative, for the problem is too great for passive solution.
The importance of such an effort and the immediacy of the problem that it attempts to correct is evidenced by a glance at the current state of affairs in Central Europe. Hon. Members will recall the latest statement on the Defence Estimates presented to the House by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence in which the grave imbalance between NATO and the Warsaw Pact conventional forces was outlined. The Warsaw Pact forces enjoy a 2·8:1 superiority over NATO forces in artillery and in main battle tanks, and a 2·3:1 superiority in fixed-wing tactical aircraft. The state of affairs in the Eastern Atlantic is equally unacceptable, with NATO submarines and surface ships outnumbered by a ratio of 1·5:1. Certainly military advantage cannot be measured purely in terms of armaments, but the preponderance of Warsaw Pact strength in these two crucial area cannot be taken lightly.
Supplementing NATO's conventional forces are her theatre and strategic nuclear forces, almost all of which are supplied by the United States. The disparity in strength between the Warsaw Pact's theatre nuclear forces and those of the Alliance is even more critical than that in conventional forces, although steps have been taken very recently by the Allies to correct the problem by the proposed deployment of 464 ground-launched cruise missiles and 108 Pershing II ballistic missiles in Western European countries.
The strategic nuclear force balance is more even at present, with the forces of the United States and the Soviet Union being roughly equivalent. We must keep in mind at all times, however, that the Alliance's nuclear forces exist primarily as a deterrent and that every conceivable effort must be made to maintain their strength at a sufficient level to prevent their use.
The strengthening of NATO's conventional forces is also a fundamental goal, and this strengthening must be achieved in two ways: both by a great acceleration in the development and procurement of armaments, and by a commensurate increase in the efficiency and effectiveness of present forces. A numerical parity with the Warsaw Pact nations in conventional forces is both unfeasible and undesirable. The vast majority of the pact's armaments are supplied by the Soviet Union, whose centrally controlled


economy allows her to channel resources and manpower into the defence sector in a fashion and magnitude which is unacceptable in the competitive free economic systems of the West.
It is necessary, therefore, that we should also strive to improve the effectiveness of our present forces, specifically by ensuring that the forces of the different nations in the Alliance will be able to work together as a unified whole in the face of an enemy attack. It is in this sense that interoperability of NATO weaponry is a pressing need.
Interoperability has been defined by NATO as
The ability of systems, units or forces to provide services to, and accept services from, other systems, units or forces and to use the services so exchanged to enable them to operate efficiently together.
Four major problem areas can be identified: the interfacing of communication and other electronic equipment; the interchangeability of munitions; the cross-servicing of aircraft; and the interchangeability of components and spare parts. The House will surely realise the importance of these concepts to the effective collaboration of NATO forces in the defence of the West. Intercommunication between allied forces is critical in a coalition effort, and the increased sophistication of communication equipment in recent years has multiplied the problems of interfacing between different systems. The ability to interchange ammunition in each class is important both at distribution points and on the battlefield. Aircraft must be able to land at the nearest allied base in time of war for refuelling, rearming and minor repairs.
The importance of the interoperability of NATO weaponry was emphasised in 1979 when the United States conducted a paper exercise, code-named "Nifty Nugget", simulating NATO involvement in an all-out conventional war. The generals found that the intense concentration in the last decade on the production of nuclear weapons had led to a scarcity of conventional bullets and bombs.
Many sources of these types of basic ammunition had dried up, and most of the remainder had become outmoded. In this simulation American forces found themselves in the embarrassing situation of having guns without bullets. If it were not simply a paper exercise but real war, the safety of the Alliance would depend on the capability of American forces to use ammunition produced in other NATO nations such as ours. That is but one illustration of the dangers of a lack of interoperability in the allied forces.
In spite of the evident danger, an incredible array of difficulties still exist. Recent surveys list 50 different types of ammunition, 36 different types of fire control radar, 16 different types of auxiliary fuel tanks at least 36 different fuel nozzles and at least 28 different power units. In joint manoeuvres several years ago, the Belgian and West German armies found that the fuel pipes and gauges of the two forces' vehicles would not work together, even though they used the same fuel. They further found that West German stretchers would not fit on the racks of Belgian army ambulances.
Some problems are more pressing than others, of course, but the fact remains that a plethora of major difficulties would ensue in wartime and there is no doubt that countless problems have yet to be discovered.
A variety of successes in the attempt to increase interoperability of NATO weapons have already been realised. The most recent and most important was the

decision last year to use the same bullet, Belgian 5·56 mm round called the SS109, for all the Alliance's rifles and light machine guns. That change will save Her Majesty's Armed Forces approximately £5 million. I cannot resist the temptation to point out to the Minister that the saving of £5 million would adequately cover the cost of retaining 41 Commando Royal Marines. My hon. Friend will be aware that its planned disappearance is not only a blow to me and, I believe, the country as a whole but a significant blow to the finest corps that God ever gave to man.
Tests concluded in 1979 showed that the portable laser target marker and ranger developed by our Armed Forces is interoperable with the United States' army's precision guided munition which homes on to a target marked by a laser system. A joint tactical information distribution system is presently under development by our nation in co-operation with America, France and the Federal Republic of Germany to provide means of interconnecting critical communications between tactical forces. More modest advances include standard containers and pallets which are interoperable with all mechanical handling equipment. Nevertheless, these advances have been few when compared with the work which remains to be done.
Before proposing a fresh solution to the problem, let us consider the past solutions that have met with limited success. In 1975 the North Atlantic Council formed an ad hoc committee on equipment interoperability. That has since been succeeded by an armaments standardisation and interoperability division under NATO's military committee. In 1976, the United States Congress passed an Act requiring that any equipment procured for American NATO forces must by interoperable with the equipment of other NATO nations. A House of Representatives sub-committee hearing a year later revealed that some slow progress had been made.
In Britain, responsible Government spokesmen have for years endorsed interoperability as a worthwhile and necessary goal. It is evident that these proclamations and actions by NATO and individual Governments have been on too small a scale to be effective to any great extent. For a problem of such importance nothing short of a concerted effort among all NATO member nations will suffice. The discussion of such an effort must inevitably include the problem of standardisation, to which I now turn.
Standardisation, as the Minister knows well, is the use of identical or nearly identical armaments by all members of the Alliance. The case for standardisation is both economic and military. The defence sector of industry in the European Community receives armament orders in excess of £13 billion a year while in the United States the figure is in excess of £15 billion. The redundance of much of this expenditure is evident when it is realised that the Alliance has at present 100 different types of ships, 23 different families of tactical combat aircraft, seven different main battle tanks, 100 different types of tactical missiles and 31 different types of anti-tank weapons.
Armaments collaboration by NATO member States can save billions of pounds annually in research and development costs by eliminating duplication of effort and in procurement costs by taking advantage of longer production runs. These cost savings would allow the Alliance to purchase more weapons, this decreasing the numerical imbalance between NATO and the Warsaw Pact forces without distorting the economies of the Western nations. On the military side, former NATO Commander Andrew Goodpaster has estimated that at no extra cost


military effectiveness could be increased by at least 30 per cent. overall and by as much as 300 per cent. in some tactical air units as a result of standardisation.
As in the case of interoperability, our Governmant have long encouraged standardisation through collaboration with other countries in weapon development. Many of our major new weapon systems of the past decade have been developed either bilaterally with France or trilaterally with Italy and the Federal Republic of Germany, including the Jaguar and MRCA aircraft, the Martel air-to-surface missile and the 155 mm artillery system. Other important NATO collaborations include the Roland short-range air-defence system, developed jointly by France and West Germany and produced with the United States, the United States developed the F-16 fighter aircraft, procured by a five-member NATO consortium, and the Boeing E-3A aircraft funded by a group of 13 NATO nations, which, along with our own Nimrod surveillance aircraft, will form the basis of the airborne early warning and control system.
Attempts have been made to improve inter-European weapons collaboration by the formation of various organisations, including the West European Union, FINABEL and the Independent European Programme Group, none of which is directly connected with NATO. Of these, the IEPG is presently the most effective, not least because it enables France to participate. The group initiated by the NATO Defence Ministers seeks to harmonise national weapon development and procurement programmes in order to avoid duplication of effort. The planning committee is under British chairmanship. It also attempts to iron out the political and economic difficulties of collaboration and to maintain a transatlantic dialogue with the United States—the two-way street to which I intend to refer. In spite of the group's continued support at ministerial level in all the countries involved, however, it has no power to make and enforce decisions of its own, but can only organise and identify possible programmes of co-operation.
All hon. Members, I am sure, are aware of the main barriers to international collaboration on a NATO-wide scale. The first is the right of the sovereign and free member States to determine their own defence policies. France is the most extreme, but not by any means the sole, example. The second and more troublesome is the competition and interests of rival industries in the free Western economy and the capability of these industries to affect the political decision-making process in their respective nations. Governments and industries often fear that collaboration will jeopardise technological development and reduce industrial output in the nation's own defence sector.
Another barrier has tended to be a lack of coincidence in the timing of requirements. Economic barriers are heightened when transatlantic collaboration is the issue. The proverbial two-way street in trade and procurement between Europe and North America is still decidedly one-sided, with east-bound traffic far surpassing west-bound traffic in volume. Economic deadlocks have suppressed the flow of traffic and caused many head-on collisions. In the eyes of many NATO experts, it is the Europeans who are driving on the wrong side of the road.
For decades the United States invested little in the European arms market. In the past four years, however, President Carter and the Pentagon publicly and strongly

advocated American purchase of European armaments, and took steps, such as repealing the buy-American provisions, to facilitate these purchases. It is widely agreed on both sides of the Atlantic that these initiatives cannot succeed unless the European nations act collectively. The United States does not always find it cost-beneficial to deal bilaterally with individual European nations, and many European Governments shy away from such arrangements for fear that their industries will become mere sub-contractors to giant American corporations.
Only when Europe presents a unified economic front will traffic flow freely on both sides of the street, and only when she presents a unified military front will this traffic result in an increase in interoperability and standardisation. The principal organ for discussing and striving for interoperability and standardisation is NATO's European group.
The military decisions themselves, in terms of outlining armaments requirements of the Alliance and how they are to be met, must be made within the NATO structure. In order to ensure that the needs of the European nations are best met, however, both for the sake of the individual nations and of the Alliance as a whole, Europe must once again act on a unified basis.
Although the concepts of interoperability and standardisation are obviously related, and though the advantages ensuing from both are similar, the goals are not irrevocably linked. Disagreement over the optimal amount of standardisation and over the methods of achieving it, both of which are quite creditable, need not and must not affect the continuation and intensification of the drive towards interoperability. Interoperability of present weaponry is a topic that must be approached by nations both individually and in groups, each examining its own armaments and making any changes necessary to make them compatible with similar armaments of other NATO member nations. Interoperability of future systems need not even involve collaboration in development of procurement, as long as it is established through NATO's Conference of National Armament Directors or the IEPG that the systems being introduced are fully compatible with similar systems being planned by other nations.
Standardisation is a necessary but ultimate goal. Some may say that it is utopian. The economic and political problems accompanying it are much more complex than those associtated with interoperability. Serious discussions and planning of a standardisation structure along the lines that I have described must be concurrent with an immediate application of effort to the problem of interoperability.
The Government must now take the lead in ensuring full co-operation among European nations in pursuit of these vital objectives. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister should now call upon President Reagan and his newly appointed Secretary of Defence to take the lead in conducting a clear transatlantic dialogue of ideas and action to reach goals, especially as her recent American trip was so successful. This dialogue between our two countries has been strengthened as a result.

The Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Royal Air Force (Mr. Geoffrey Pattie): I congratulate


my hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale (Mr. Trippier) on so comprehensively and convincingly setting out his case.
Clearly, with the seriousness of the threat facing us, to which my hon. Friend has drawn attention, we must ensure that the resources at our disposal are used in the most effective and efficient way. But, however attractive in concept, that does not mean that the separate nations in the Alliance should all use the same equipment. That would be to deny the individual character of the countries in the Alliance, and to fail to recognise real and genuine differences—differences in geography, in tactical concepts, in economic and technical background, in conscript and professional forces. I do not seek to emphasise these differences. Indeed the record of the allies in working together within the NATO framework shows that they are not a barrier to success. But the policies we adopt must be in accord with realities of the situation. And, indeed, within reason a variety of weaponry provides some strengths—a wider spectrum of capability against which an enemy must provide and a greater flexibility in the use of NATO forces.
The key to our approach has therefore been to recognise the value of maintaining an alliance within which 15 sovereign nations freely choose to work and to concentrate on encouraging collaboration and improving interoperability between the various armed forces and between their equipments. My hon. Friend rightly stresses this aspect. The case is accepted by the allies and it is accepted by Britain.
Standardisation does not require identical equipment. Considerable effort is devoted to the agreement of standards which ensure the necessary degree of interoperability. These, for instance, cover procedures for refuelling or rearming. Standards for the sort of grass root matters referred to are not neglected and cover, for example, electrical connectors or couplings which enable trucks of one country to tow trailers from another. There are many such examples. There are, as one instance, over 55 priority 1 STANAGS dealing with the standardisation and interoperability of components and spare parts. With such agreed standards nations are prepared to set about the task of adapting current stocks; but, perhaps more important, they become the design criteria for the next generations of main equipments. The results of this substantial effort are not eye catching but they represent solid and essential progress.
More obvious examples such as the strategic communications, command and control, air defence and early warning systems require a very high degree of standardisation. This essential need can best be met through provision of equipment built to common design specifications. In these areas a common approach is being successfully developed, and much of the procurement of the equipment required will be through contracts supported by the common infrastructure fund.
Optimising the combined effort of the different national forces involves examining any differences in procedure, tactics, command and control and equipment. All these methods have to be devised to avoid the creation of weak spots that could be exploited by an enemy. This means adopting commonly agreed standards but not necessarily identical equipment, a distinction already drawn by my hon. Friend.
Typical areas identified in the long-term defence programme are command, control and communications;

cross-servicing of aircraft, so that one nation can, for example, refuel and rearm the aircraft of another; and components and spare parts. High priority areas of this nature have received immediate attention. For instance, British aircraft committed to NATO are, or will be, equipped with standard NATO interfaces or will carry adaptors. Material standardisation is being brought into line with standardisation agreements. And there are, in addition to the recent agreement on rifle ammunition which was referred to, important agreements on the interchangeability of future 155mm ammunition. The planning procedures now being introduced as a direct result of the LTDP provide specifically for the major NATO commanders to highlight their priorities for interoperability, and so we can be sure that these will continue to be identified and acted upon.
Impressive figures have been quoted for the number of different weapon systems available to the members of the Alliance. Indeed, the variety is probably greater than it should be. However, it must be clear that we cannot talk in terms of just a few basic weapons to do the job. A whole range of systems is required to undertake the various military tasks. In one area—anti-tank weapons—quite separate missiles are required for the short, medium and long ranges, with further equipment for helicopter-launched weapons. Taking into account quite normal overlaps in the generations of equipment in service and some degree of variation between different users, perhaps 20 anti-tank missiles in service might be taken as a minimum figure to which we might aspire. A not dissimilar pattern might be found in other areas. Figures quoted simply by themselves can therefore be misleading.
I should like to take up particularly the point raised about national industrial interests. These of course represent a very considerable factor in negotiations toward greater equipment standardisation and collaboration. It is, I think, important to recognise the effect that the expenditure on defence developments, concentrated as it often is on high technology areas, can have by stimulating innovation and raising the competence of the industrial base. In many NATO countries, too, the defence industry plays a direct and important part in the economy. This needs to be very much borne in mind when standardisation is being canvassed, because the strength of the Alliance depends as much and more on the health of the economies of its members as on their armed preparedness. Additionally, I believe that a strong European defence industrial base and an ability to manufacture its own weapon systems is vital to a European sense of involvement in the fortunes of the Alliance and in its own security. If to achieve this we must pay a price in some duplication of weapon systems, that may be a price that we should be willing to pay.
America provides a major and essential contribution to the Alliance. Its position and economic and industrial strength has, not surprisingly, resulted in an historical imbalance in the arms trade between the United States and Europe. However, the willingness of the Carter Administration to improve the degree of real transatlantic co-operation has been endorsed by the new Administration in Washington. Secretary Weinberger was receptive to the argument of both the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Defence during their recent visits that it was in the interests of the Alliance as a whole that a greater balance of the two-way-street should be achieved.
However, Europe must work to ensure that opportunities are realised. It has the equipment to meet American requirements, as the sale of the Rapier and Roland systems has shown. The IEPG is bringing together European views within a transatlantic dialogue, covering many of the issues raised by my hon. Friend, including dual production arrangements on a series of projects, development of the families of weapons concept and European Systems, all of attraction to the United States.
NATO is well provided with the machinery to meet the needs that we have been debating. That is not to say that the machinery may not from time to time need examination to ensure that it is efficient and well directed. Britain is keen to play its full part in this constructive

examination, especially against the background of the long-term defence programme, one part of which, titled "Rationalisation", was dedicated to identifying ways of getting better value from what NATO spends on equipment.
The record is not as good as it should be, but it is improving. Apart from the immediate advantages such collaborative activity brings to improved standardisation and interoperability, I see it contributing through bringing the services and industrialists in the different nations closer together. The habits of working together are bound to lead forward towards a greater degree of common thinking and specification, which is at the heart of improved standardisation.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at thirteen minutes to Three o'clock am.